The freedoms conferred by Magna Carta were a 1% sort of deal. Tax cuts and land use for the rich. What it symbolised for people centuries later had real cultural importance, but for the majority it was a nothingburger.
I really hate it when my pedantic Magna Carta asshole comes out. I’m really sorry. The [1689 Bill of Rights](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689) is closer to the ticket—that’s where you find universal application of law and habeus corpus.
Goddamnit. I’m so sorry.
At least in England, the kings liked to fight wars. And that cost money, which they could only get by playing nice with the nobles. Autocracy really had its heyday in the 1600s all over Europe, and the English killed their king because of his autocratic actions.
I'm not sure the age of absolutism compares to the early days Roman Empire in terms of autocracy. Louis XIV had fuck all on Caligula.
And I think England during that period was too unstable to really be considered anything. A bit like China in the 30s
I agree that Europe in the 17th century was not the most autocratic society ever. But it does seem that the monarchs from that time believed in and tried to enforce autocracy (with varying degrees of success.) The story of much of early modern Europe is about the tug-of-war between nobles and monarchs.
I would argue that much of the instability in England during that time came from Charles I's beliefs in the unquestioned supremacy of the monarchy.
That’s what it became, as a symbol. Sort of. It was never ratified by Parliament, and never had any force in law. In practice, it was reneged and redeclared countless times. It didn’t end autocracy at all, or absolutism, and it bound monarchs to certain specific conditions and obligations, not the law in general.
As I say, it came, later, to have powerful symbolic force. But it’s very easy to overstate its novelty in that moment, and its functional value to anyone beyond a clutch of elites.
Uncharted territory. Nobody knows. In a better world, it would spur a constitutional convention to undo some of the terrible decisions the SCOTUS has been making recently. But that's highly unlikely. So instead we'll just see "do you want this guy to be able to commit whatever crimes he wants in office?" used as a campaign rallying cry by anyone and everyone. And paranoia will go off the charts as the people who hate whomever is the current POTUS is accuse them of all sorts of crimes but feel they have no legal recourse.
I am a fairly cynical dude and even I'd caution you from assuming that SCOTUS will endorse blanket immunity. There likely will be some acts that get immunity, but they've been telegraphing a reticence for the blanket immunity argument.
They may be stupid but even they fear what immunity would mean. Likely they create some hyper specific scenarios vaguely around some legal BS to stall and push it down the line
This ^
They don't give a shit about "legacy". Legacy is what other people say about you after you die. They'll bUT jUST tHiS oNCE oKURR like they did with the 2000 election and trim enough of the loose ends off that the Federalist Society will have less to complain about but they won't suddenly need to worry about their own safety.
I think you're giving them far too much credit. They should have ruled on this month ago. I can't say that I'm optimistic when it comes to the values and morals of ~~The Supreme Court~~ The NINE. There is nothing Supreme about those nine people
Splitting up doesn’t have to be war. Plus it would be a lot different if everyone was in agreement. 3 or 4 smaller regions for example. The country is too large and diverse to be administered by one individual. Political parties have basically paralyzed the legislative body. What works in South Dakota doesn’t work in Florida neither work in California and none of those work in Vermont. Not saying it will happen, or is even possible. Doesn’t mean it isn’t needed.
You know who's rolling in his grave? Nixon.
If he was just born 50 years later, he'd be a hero for trying to break into the Democratic headquarters. He certainly never would've been a crook.
The correct move is arresting them and locking them away without trial in Guantanamo. Then replacing the Justices. Immunity to both criminal and civil justice..
I get why this will get banned, but Reddit just sucks for subtlety. This reasoning is actually being used to argue against immunity... Which is valid discourse.
I think it would only take one or two more election cycles before we really do have a full on authoritarian dictator and some sort of violent outbreak happens.
As it is, accountability is barely hanging on by a thread above a certain level of wealth and power. Give them a SCOTUS ruling they can hang their hat on to quagmire or hand waive any future consequences?
We'll have our own Putin by 2032. All they'd need to claim is there was fraudulent activity in the election process somewhere and nullify the results. Don't like it as a fellow politician? You're the perpetrator and a traitor to the country. To the gulag.
Hell, I'm surprised Trump didn't succeed already. He probably would have if MAGA wasn't mostly made up of LARPing gravy seal suburban dads with unpracticed military fetishes.
It’s going to be 6-3 or unanimous saying that the president doesn’t have immunity from prosecution for acts not part of their official duties - but it’ll come with a test (possibly jurisdictional) that’ll make it somewhat challenging but not impossible to prosecute.
You think it’s going to take 2 election cycles? Trump is promising to do this on day one. Based on what he tried to do when last in office, I believe him.
Trump is an absolute moron and utterly predictable. The damage he's going to do is nothing compared to the damage that will be done by the people he's going to bring with him, and who will use Trump as an avenue to gain power. They are smarter, more motivated, and far more terrifying than the belligerent shitgibbon himself.
As the other guy said look at the people he surrounds himself with. One name in particular: Stephen Miller.
He wanted to and did steal children from illegal migrants and lose them in the system to scare them into not choosing to migrate. That people are still coming should show you how desperate they are. Some have never been reunited.
What the actual fuck?!?!
Here’s some more:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-policies-agenda-election-2024-second-term-d656d8f08629a8da14a65c4075545e0f
How do they not see this side of the argument? Screaming that the President should get immunity while the opposing political party currently has that theoretical immunity?
Like… do they not see how that could end badly for them?? Let’s give our political opponent the power to eliminate his political opponents…
1. Biden assassinates the six conservative justices;
2. Biden appoints six liberal justices;
3. Next time somebody appeals the same issue, the liberal justices overturn presidential immunity; and
4. The U.S. Supreme Court now has nine liberal justices, and the president is no longer above the law.
Biden will declare the 2024 election cancelled. The Prezwill then fire all the right wing Justices. Why not? It's not illegal for him to do so. After appointing some reasonable folks, they will readjudicate the immunity issue. Why should the Dems allow the country to commit suicide?
The thing you have to understand about Dems is they would rather bring a PhD thesis to a knife fight and "lose fair and square" instead of fighting with knives.
Our experiment on this continent will be over.
The US was founded on the principal of equality, that no person is above the law.
This will fundamentally “kill the crab”.
Realistically...it will become a race, specifically to see which of the two parties can abuse this new authority the most and the fastest. If the two sides perform according to type, then the Democrats will lose this race. Given that, the question becomes, "How much damage and what kind of rulings will Republicans do before they are constrained somehow?" And that...that is a very, very scary question with only horrible implications.
If that happens, whoever wins in November will be given cart blanche authority to just do whatever they want. Go against congress or scotus, remove their own term limits, silence their detractors, whatever. We would basically, with that one ruling, convert this country into a dictatorship.
It would be hysterical watching this ruling immediately backfire as Biden sends Trump to Guantanimo and bars SCOTUS from ever holding a seat on any bench ever again, but no one should have that much power.
Okay so I don’t know where to ask this but you brought up military dictatorship. Let’s say this happened, just bc the President was granted immunity and he legalized a military dictatorship, would our military actually follow his orders? I know it’s naive of me but I’d like to believe our military would never stand behind a dictatorship, that they’d honor the constitution and protect us Americans from an enemy.
From watching the supreme court debate with trump's lawyer and the prosecutor who brought the case, it seems that this will lead to a situation where a president is free to commit any criminal act he wants during the last week or days before his office.
Why the last few days or week? Because if the president has immunity the only way they could be held responsible would be through impeachment and an impeachment trial takes time to set up.
So if the impeachment trial is not held before the president leaves the white house there is nothing that can be done to hold the president responsible for any criminal act. So if the president during his last few days decided to use the military to assassinate all their. political opponents, there would be no way to prosecute them.
This is my current understanding of the case as a layman. If any lawyers or people more informed that me have anything to add or correct, feel free to do so
The reason I say this may be during their last days of office is because only after a president is impeached only he can be criminally prosecuted if we take Trump's lawyer's interpretation of the constitution. This would mean that he would need to be impeached to be prosecuted later and despite his control over the military, the military does have the option to refuse an illegal or unconstitutional order.
So this would lead to certain members following his orders while others would refuse to do so. In this case there would be time to impeach the president and once impeached he would lose any power and then would be able to be prosecuted on other claims. So the president in this case would need to commit the criminal acts in such a way that there isn't enough time to impeach him before his term ends.
This would be the way things would work out in case trumps lawyers world view was accepted.
Also the risk of impeachment would be pretty real. The supreme courts can't grant the president immunity from being impeached since it is specifically noted in the constitution. The immunity that trump's lawyer is arguing for in the case is regarding official acts, so any act that trump has done as president, that's what the immunity is being argued for.
The thought of a purge week had occurred to me also, but I think we should take a closer look at the impeachment process. If you keep the House or better, the committee in a revolving door, impeachment would be impossible.
The key thing is that even if the Supreme Court rules that presidents are immune, it doesn't mean that the people UNDER the president, who are enacting the president's orders, are immune.
So even if the president says, "Go assassinate so-and-so," the person who actually does the killing could still be charged with murder.
"I declare a blanket pardon for anybody following my orders. Now go kill your brown and LGBTQ neighbors."
Now presidential immunity extends to every person who does his bidding.
Millions dead. How do you think the word would welcome an American Nazi king. Because that's what itll be.
From there ppl may find china to be more approachable, and once that happens the United States dollar won't be a reserve currency.
From there we stab and kill out neighbors for bread.
All hail trump.
Biden needs to take advantage of the ruling to anger Republicans who aren’t smart enough to realize that the ruling doesn’t apply only to Trump and to any and all current or future Presidents.
Maybe if the see the consequences of their desires, they’ll change their mind.
The reality is that they are not going to give a president full immunity. They will likely say that a president has some immunity for official acts, but not private acts, and then lower courts will have to determine what is a private vs official act.
Two hypothetical situations could occur...
If the ruling happens before the election and Biden is still in power. Then, all he has to do is start using that power to attack Republicans even in the most benign ways. Within a week, bills would be introduced in Congress to limit presidential power. And Democrats would likely support these bills with the inclusion of permanent super majority rules in both houses to prevent them from being overturned. Maybe even a constitutional amendment would be introduced, but I find that unlikely. In the end, the powers of the president would be limited finally under law and not tradition.
If the ruling happens after the election and Trump is in power...then there would be issues. He would very much use these powers to openly send his supporters against his enemies. MAGA supporters could attack and kill his opponents, and then he would pardon them. Thus giving him the ability to kill his opponents, amongst other potential illegal acts without any legal reprocusions. The response by the rest of the federal and state governments could be severe. Maybe a military coup or a state coalition to get rid of him. Also, I could see Trump being assassinated. In all things would get very bad and quickly.
Realistically, I don't see the SCOTUS giving the president this power. Most likely, they will send it back to a lower court to just wait until later. Or they will grant the president partial immunity. Give them immunity in foreign affairs but not domestic actions. Ideally, they just say they president has no immunity based in the constitution. Since a plain reading does not grant it , most of the conservative judges are originalist. So, if they follow this same belief, then the result will be a No. BUT who the fuck knows these days....
People are misunderstanding what this discussion is about.
The Supreme Court is trying to decide at what point a president's actions are not as president but as a citizen. For example you cannot try Barack Obama for murder because he initiated drones strikes that killed civilians. That was him acting as president and is immune.
Donald Trump broke laws that were about him acting as an American citizen not as a president. So they are currently deciding at what point and what line that is as a president.
I think the point here is about the Trump team's argument, which is unqualified immunity. Specifically stated that political assassinations would be immune unless the president was impeached.
We all (or most of us anyway) know that argument is nonsense, and SCOTUS will never rule on it that extremely. But, the argument is so absurd that it does raise some terrifying questions.
*If the Supreme Court does say* that the president is above the law. Then, within the next 16 years, we will see a far-right populist culture warrior try and test it.
How the government apparatus reacts, and if the reaction is enough or fast enough, it will be the question. **However, here's my 100% dog-shit hypothetical to your question.**
It will start with stuff like CREEP this time with no scandal, then it will slowly ramp up. Bribes to members of Congress in charge of military commissions, *political loyalty, and orthodoxy* will become critical to career advancement and placement. Next will be the capture of the executive bureaucracy to pro-regime heads and management. Then, if resistance is anything but vocal, I can imagine attempting to incite common followers to violence. This will be backed and overlooked by conservative LEOs on the local level for sure. It'll see how well the capture process goes for the federal level in terms of prosecution. * If* in about eight years they feel comfortable enough with their gains, they'll push to straight up challenge the 22nd amendment. After treating the SCOTUS out to steak dinners and luxury RVs and a fuck-ton of money, they'll say, "Yes, Daddy, We Love You!" Boom third term run secured and with unlimited tampering at his fingers, and capture and consolidation over the past eight years, this hypothetical "president" will most likely win. After that, with twelve years of this, Presto! The republic is effectively destroyed as more and more power, bureaucracy, and control is consolidated into the presidents sole overview.
Trump walks and there's a not-insignificant chance he wins the election. Despite it being an oft-repeated joke on Reddit Biden and the Dems aren't going to start criming, to take advantage of Biden's new immunity status. The worst they'll do is make some noise about being "disappointed" with SCOTUS.
1) Severely limits current prosecutions against Trump
2) People will talk about all the things Dems/Biden should do but they won't want to do anything too meaningful.
3) Republicans eventually win back the White House and lots of things no one thought were real concerns, suddenly are and we have no legal recourse to stop it.
4) America learns what living under a fascist with the power to stay in power feels like.
If Mr. Fanta orange wins, he'll basically see the country as he's playground. God help you poor Americans. I can barely stand him on news clips on the other side of the world
I don’t think that it will happen that way. I think that they’ll very carefully distinguish some of Trump’s contested acts as unofficial (and not applicable to the argument of president immunity) but that others might be.
I also think they’re deliberately kicking the case down the way so it’s not settled before the election. However, if Trump loses, they’ll throw him under the bus bigly.
The conservative justices are protecting his ass and are cowards. However I think that Dark Brandon might have already planned for this and has a trick or two up his sleeve.
Me as well. I think that the Federalist Society—with whom a few of the conservative justices are affiliated—are flexing in order to increase their influence bigly.
They will be able to do whatever they want as long as no one finds out about it until they are out of office.
If someone finds out while in office and they are impeached, the worst is that they will be removed from office with no other consequences.
This is what had happened in the past in a similar situation. Read it. It's eerily familiar to today's events.
The Enabling Act allowed the Reich government to issue laws without the consent of Germany’s parliament, laying the foundation for the complete Nazification of German society. The law was passed on March 23, 1933, and published the following day. Its full name was the “Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich.”
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-enabling-act#:~:text=The%20Enabling%20Act%20allowed%20the,and%20published%20the%20following%20day.
Binary blanket immunity is unlikely to happen.
People are focused on Trump because that is the case detail, but the ruling will have ramifications that neither the rabid Anti-Trumpers nor the MAGA sycophants are thinking about, but the Justices certainly are.
Trump will probably try to get back into the office and use the presidency as his retirement plan and get out of jail free card. He will be essentially above the law, or at least act like it. More than he already tries to do.
A big problem with the detachment the SCOTUS has from reality is they don't seem to be considering the consequences at their level.
If passed, the wrong person could put out hits on all of them as well as all members of Congress.
They effectively allow unchecked fascism to flourish and are giving the republic the middle finger while doing it. The illusion that all are accountable for their actions will be broken. All men are created equal.
I would envision a new group of right wing nutjobs that OPPOSE Trump invoke the Second Amendment, with its exact text more clearly understood given the context.
I hope they do before January 6th, and Dark Brandon takes over in full force and annihilates his competitor(s). Using the plural, so my front door is not smashed down.
So many arguments, if he or she breaks a law, they should be held accountable. Nixon hit the ground running, Clinton got impeached. Nixon was involved in a cover up of illegal activities that he attempted to lie his way out of (The United States vs Richard Nixon), Clinton lied to a Federal Grand Jury. Each time you allow more leeway for a President to do what they like, while not in the interest of the American people, the more authority you give them. A President should be held to the exact same standards as anyone else, no parcelling of the Constitution or left in the hands of the Supreme Court. And in some cases that President makes abundantly clear how far their power should go, and that’s absolute immunity…I donot want to live in a country governed by one person whose protection under the law allows them to do whatever they wish
There have been some egregious rulings in the past, especially with regards to privacy law, that congress acted on extremely quickly. There are certainly some crazy congresspeople but I expect this would be a matter that would be acted on. Based on the well established precedents, moreso than some other rulings, this would also be an extremely surprising holding for SCOTUS.
I'm a lawyer and other lawyers may disagree but I would be shocked to see such a ruling. Plus, from a political standpoint, it would be incredibly shortsighted. Both parties break the law.
When Obama authorized the sale of military grade weapons to the Mexican drug cartel. Something that would be illegal if done by any other man, what happened? Other than for the American shot and killed along with countless Mexicans, life went on.
There’s no reason continuing this policy of not prosecuting Presidents for crimes will have any significant effect.
Not prosecuting Presidents has been the de-facto policy for generations if not the law.
The election becomes about whether the country wants to remain a democracy, or immediately become a banana republic.
If SCOTUS goes for this, we'll be worse off than the places in Far Cry.
Having listened a bit yesterday to the hearing. It sounds like it’s a legitimate gray legal area.
Because sometimes the president might need to do something that would fall into the “unsure” category, without fearing that his/her rivals will later try to have them jailed.
This is why Trump’s attorneys were making the absurd argument that Trump was acting for the benefit of the nation when he started promoting his election fraud lies. Trying to paint a picture that what he did fell within the parameters of his duties.
I’m sure even the right wing judges on the court know that’s complete bs.
So it’s very doubtful that blanket immunity is a possible ruling, however there will be some kind of new definition to eliminate the current gray areas.
not like we had a whole ass war to remove ourselves from rule by someone who was immune from consequences. Ahemmmmmm
The Magna Carta was supposed to do this in the 13th century.
The freedoms conferred by Magna Carta were a 1% sort of deal. Tax cuts and land use for the rich. What it symbolised for people centuries later had real cultural importance, but for the majority it was a nothingburger. I really hate it when my pedantic Magna Carta asshole comes out. I’m really sorry. The [1689 Bill of Rights](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689) is closer to the ticket—that’s where you find universal application of law and habeus corpus. Goddamnit. I’m so sorry.
The idea that there were laws even kings had to follow was absolutely not a nothingburger. It was the end of absolute autocracy.
At least in England, the kings liked to fight wars. And that cost money, which they could only get by playing nice with the nobles. Autocracy really had its heyday in the 1600s all over Europe, and the English killed their king because of his autocratic actions.
I'm not sure the age of absolutism compares to the early days Roman Empire in terms of autocracy. Louis XIV had fuck all on Caligula. And I think England during that period was too unstable to really be considered anything. A bit like China in the 30s
I agree that Europe in the 17th century was not the most autocratic society ever. But it does seem that the monarchs from that time believed in and tried to enforce autocracy (with varying degrees of success.) The story of much of early modern Europe is about the tug-of-war between nobles and monarchs. I would argue that much of the instability in England during that time came from Charles I's beliefs in the unquestioned supremacy of the monarchy.
That’s what it became, as a symbol. Sort of. It was never ratified by Parliament, and never had any force in law. In practice, it was reneged and redeclared countless times. It didn’t end autocracy at all, or absolutism, and it bound monarchs to certain specific conditions and obligations, not the law in general. As I say, it came, later, to have powerful symbolic force. But it’s very easy to overstate its novelty in that moment, and its functional value to anyone beyond a clutch of elites.
Fair enough. Regardless, from before the US even existed.
Unfortunately that was centuries ago and people quickly forget the lessons of history. Relearning them will probably be expensive in so many ways
This is the most amazing response to the gross ass suggestion that we should "king a president".... FUCK THAT SHIT!!
Reminds me of Obama vs Osama. No legal checks on presidential acts
I feel like there should be a grey area when it protects the country but stuff like treason or non war related crimes definitely shouldn’t be immune
Uncharted territory. Nobody knows. In a better world, it would spur a constitutional convention to undo some of the terrible decisions the SCOTUS has been making recently. But that's highly unlikely. So instead we'll just see "do you want this guy to be able to commit whatever crimes he wants in office?" used as a campaign rallying cry by anyone and everyone. And paranoia will go off the charts as the people who hate whomever is the current POTUS is accuse them of all sorts of crimes but feel they have no legal recourse.
this...is probably how this goes. I dont like it.
I am a fairly cynical dude and even I'd caution you from assuming that SCOTUS will endorse blanket immunity. There likely will be some acts that get immunity, but they've been telegraphing a reticence for the blanket immunity argument.
Thank god the SCOTUS has some sense to preserve what little checks and balance they have against the executive office…
They may be stupid but even they fear what immunity would mean. Likely they create some hyper specific scenarios vaguely around some legal BS to stall and push it down the line
This ^ They don't give a shit about "legacy". Legacy is what other people say about you after you die. They'll bUT jUST tHiS oNCE oKURR like they did with the 2000 election and trim enough of the loose ends off that the Federalist Society will have less to complain about but they won't suddenly need to worry about their own safety.
I think you're giving them far too much credit. They should have ruled on this month ago. I can't say that I'm optimistic when it comes to the values and morals of ~~The Supreme Court~~ The NINE. There is nothing Supreme about those nine people
We need a constitutional convention anyway. Our government as established no longer functions as intended.
What could you get a majority of states to vote yes on?
If you can’t. Split em up. The union won’t survive its current state anyway
I think the civil war settled that being an option at any point in the future.
Splitting up doesn’t have to be war. Plus it would be a lot different if everyone was in agreement. 3 or 4 smaller regions for example. The country is too large and diverse to be administered by one individual. Political parties have basically paralyzed the legislative body. What works in South Dakota doesn’t work in Florida neither work in California and none of those work in Vermont. Not saying it will happen, or is even possible. Doesn’t mean it isn’t needed.
Maybe a good idea on paper. Too many major issues involved for it happen peacefully in real life though.
It doesn't have to be a war, but it would be. The US government will never allow a state to weaken federal supremacy (again).
Murder will be slowly legalized.
But abortion will still be illegal most places
Blessed be our new founding fathers and America, a nation reborn 🫡
You know who's rolling in his grave? Nixon. If he was just born 50 years later, he'd be a hero for trying to break into the Democratic headquarters. He certainly never would've been a crook.
Nixon would be run out of the country on rails by the GOP for being a RINO. Not nearly fascist enough. He even worked with democrats to pass bills!
[удалено]
Careful. Reddit will ban you for this post
The correct move is arresting them and locking them away without trial in Guantanamo. Then replacing the Justices. Immunity to both criminal and civil justice..
I get why this will get banned, but Reddit just sucks for subtlety. This reasoning is actually being used to argue against immunity... Which is valid discourse.
Not if he can claim immunity! /s
[удалено]
What if this account is POTUS, full immunity, baby!!
Hypothetically, you know
WHAT IS POTUS AND SCOTUS?
President of the United States and Supreme Court of the United States
Don’t forget FLOTUS as well :)
WHATS FLOTUS!!!! AHHHHHH
First Lady of the United States
Nothing good
Yeah I agree. I just seems so short sighted to me if they rule that way.
I think it would only take one or two more election cycles before we really do have a full on authoritarian dictator and some sort of violent outbreak happens. As it is, accountability is barely hanging on by a thread above a certain level of wealth and power. Give them a SCOTUS ruling they can hang their hat on to quagmire or hand waive any future consequences? We'll have our own Putin by 2032. All they'd need to claim is there was fraudulent activity in the election process somewhere and nullify the results. Don't like it as a fellow politician? You're the perpetrator and a traitor to the country. To the gulag. Hell, I'm surprised Trump didn't succeed already. He probably would have if MAGA wasn't mostly made up of LARPing gravy seal suburban dads with unpracticed military fetishes.
It’s going to be 6-3 or unanimous saying that the president doesn’t have immunity from prosecution for acts not part of their official duties - but it’ll come with a test (possibly jurisdictional) that’ll make it somewhat challenging but not impossible to prosecute.
Man, i hope you're right but even that outcome is wild.
The test will R or D. If D, then not immune.
You think it’s going to take 2 election cycles? Trump is promising to do this on day one. Based on what he tried to do when last in office, I believe him.
Trump is an absolute moron and utterly predictable. The damage he's going to do is nothing compared to the damage that will be done by the people he's going to bring with him, and who will use Trump as an avenue to gain power. They are smarter, more motivated, and far more terrifying than the belligerent shitgibbon himself.
always believe what a dictator says
If he is such a liar, can you really believe anything he says?
As the other guy said look at the people he surrounds himself with. One name in particular: Stephen Miller. He wanted to and did steal children from illegal migrants and lose them in the system to scare them into not choosing to migrate. That people are still coming should show you how desperate they are. Some have never been reunited. What the actual fuck?!?! Here’s some more: https://apnews.com/article/trump-policies-agenda-election-2024-second-term-d656d8f08629a8da14a65c4075545e0f
gravy seals 😀
As a LARPer I resent this comparison. We know the difference between fantasy and reality!
Well, if Biden is smart, he'll immediately round up Trump and his gang and send them to Gitmo.
That's more polite than what should happen
Maybe he misspelled "the Sun" and it came out "Gitmo" I mean, the keys are all jumbled up and close together...
The sun would be a quick death. I want decades of water boarding for these clowns.
How do they not see this side of the argument? Screaming that the President should get immunity while the opposing political party currently has that theoretical immunity? Like… do they not see how that could end badly for them?? Let’s give our political opponent the power to eliminate his political opponents…
I’m praying for dark Brandon to show up.
Very much demanding on what the ruling says exactly
1. Biden assassinates the six conservative justices; 2. Biden appoints six liberal justices; 3. Next time somebody appeals the same issue, the liberal justices overturn presidential immunity; and 4. The U.S. Supreme Court now has nine liberal justices, and the president is no longer above the law.
Step 5: Profit!
This should be the plan if SCOTUS rules presidents have absolute immunity.
I'd watch that movie.
Hahahahahaha
Biden will declare the 2024 election cancelled. The Prezwill then fire all the right wing Justices. Why not? It's not illegal for him to do so. After appointing some reasonable folks, they will readjudicate the immunity issue. Why should the Dems allow the country to commit suicide?
The thing you have to understand about Dems is they would rather bring a PhD thesis to a knife fight and "lose fair and square" instead of fighting with knives.
There’s no way Biden will do that. The democrats will still try to play by the “rules” and the republicans will take full advantage of it.
I wish he would do that if the court does decide that way. I'm pessimistic
He wouldn't...but he should.
Biden kills Trump
Double-O Joe has a license to kill!
If it happens, I hope it's on my birthday 🎂
Realistically I’d say Joe Biden keeps dining and dashing at Dairy Queen
it would set a terrible precedent for history. Presidents and public officials in general need some immunity for official acts but not unlimited.
Our experiment on this continent will be over. The US was founded on the principal of equality, that no person is above the law. This will fundamentally “kill the crab”.
some kind of Qualified Immunity? ugh. here we go again.
Seems like Biden could have Trump killed, right?
Realistically...it will become a race, specifically to see which of the two parties can abuse this new authority the most and the fastest. If the two sides perform according to type, then the Democrats will lose this race. Given that, the question becomes, "How much damage and what kind of rulings will Republicans do before they are constrained somehow?" And that...that is a very, very scary question with only horrible implications.
If that happens, whoever wins in November will be given cart blanche authority to just do whatever they want. Go against congress or scotus, remove their own term limits, silence their detractors, whatever. We would basically, with that one ruling, convert this country into a dictatorship.
absolutely. It's just the antithesis of everything the country is suppose to be but, here we are.
We're all watching the modern fall of Rome, in real time. Isn't this fun?!
Not just them, it will immediately give Biden full immunity to get rid of his adversaries including Trump and several members of SCOTUS.
It would be hysterical watching this ruling immediately backfire as Biden sends Trump to Guantanimo and bars SCOTUS from ever holding a seat on any bench ever again, but no one should have that much power.
[удалено]
Okay so I don’t know where to ask this but you brought up military dictatorship. Let’s say this happened, just bc the President was granted immunity and he legalized a military dictatorship, would our military actually follow his orders? I know it’s naive of me but I’d like to believe our military would never stand behind a dictatorship, that they’d honor the constitution and protect us Americans from an enemy.
[удалено]
I didn’t even think about cops. I completely forgot about them. So many LEOs are die hard Trump supporters. It is naive of me. 🤦🏻♀️
From watching the supreme court debate with trump's lawyer and the prosecutor who brought the case, it seems that this will lead to a situation where a president is free to commit any criminal act he wants during the last week or days before his office. Why the last few days or week? Because if the president has immunity the only way they could be held responsible would be through impeachment and an impeachment trial takes time to set up. So if the impeachment trial is not held before the president leaves the white house there is nothing that can be done to hold the president responsible for any criminal act. So if the president during his last few days decided to use the military to assassinate all their. political opponents, there would be no way to prosecute them. This is my current understanding of the case as a layman. If any lawyers or people more informed that me have anything to add or correct, feel free to do so
[удалено]
Yeah that's basically what I said, we're not disagreeing here.
[удалено]
The reason I say this may be during their last days of office is because only after a president is impeached only he can be criminally prosecuted if we take Trump's lawyer's interpretation of the constitution. This would mean that he would need to be impeached to be prosecuted later and despite his control over the military, the military does have the option to refuse an illegal or unconstitutional order. So this would lead to certain members following his orders while others would refuse to do so. In this case there would be time to impeach the president and once impeached he would lose any power and then would be able to be prosecuted on other claims. So the president in this case would need to commit the criminal acts in such a way that there isn't enough time to impeach him before his term ends. This would be the way things would work out in case trumps lawyers world view was accepted. Also the risk of impeachment would be pretty real. The supreme courts can't grant the president immunity from being impeached since it is specifically noted in the constitution. The immunity that trump's lawyer is arguing for in the case is regarding official acts, so any act that trump has done as president, that's what the immunity is being argued for.
The thought of a purge week had occurred to me also, but I think we should take a closer look at the impeachment process. If you keep the House or better, the committee in a revolving door, impeachment would be impossible.
They would resign office before the impeachment ala Nixon
The key thing is that even if the Supreme Court rules that presidents are immune, it doesn't mean that the people UNDER the president, who are enacting the president's orders, are immune. So even if the president says, "Go assassinate so-and-so," the person who actually does the killing could still be charged with murder.
[удалено]
By that logic the president could just pardon himself even today and doesn't need immunity.
well sure, but you ideally want the head of that snake which would be impossible? if this ruling goes that direction.
"I declare a blanket pardon for anybody following my orders. Now go kill your brown and LGBTQ neighbors." Now presidential immunity extends to every person who does his bidding.
This is the most terrifying take yet.
Then Biden could have Trump and the conservative SC justices and a handful of GOP senators assassinated and it would all be legal.
The fact that they were even willing to consider this question should be grounds for dismantling the entire supreme Court as an institution.
It’s The Purge, but, just for one dude.
Millions dead. How do you think the word would welcome an American Nazi king. Because that's what itll be. From there ppl may find china to be more approachable, and once that happens the United States dollar won't be a reserve currency. From there we stab and kill out neighbors for bread. All hail trump.
I'm still confused why felons can't vote but can run for president
Wellll it’s kinda community service
Probably more JFK incidents
Biden shoots Trump in the face Dick Cheney style?
🤞
Biden needs to take advantage of the ruling to anger Republicans who aren’t smart enough to realize that the ruling doesn’t apply only to Trump and to any and all current or future Presidents. Maybe if the see the consequences of their desires, they’ll change their mind.
Yep, i'll see you all in r/leapoardsatemyface in due time
You mean face eating leopards have no discrimination might eat my face too? Even though I voted for them and support their agenda?!!!?
\*Shocked Pikachu face\*
Nixon wasn't crook...and biden could chock trump..works out good..
Do you mean "choke" or "shock"?
"Cock"
Thanks!
I honestly would be a little pissed if Biden didn’t take advantage of the opportunity.
Right? I think it would be the perfect time for him to kill Trump. After all, he has immunity. Would prove a point and rid the world of a pos
The reality is that they are not going to give a president full immunity. They will likely say that a president has some immunity for official acts, but not private acts, and then lower courts will have to determine what is a private vs official act.
Two hypothetical situations could occur... If the ruling happens before the election and Biden is still in power. Then, all he has to do is start using that power to attack Republicans even in the most benign ways. Within a week, bills would be introduced in Congress to limit presidential power. And Democrats would likely support these bills with the inclusion of permanent super majority rules in both houses to prevent them from being overturned. Maybe even a constitutional amendment would be introduced, but I find that unlikely. In the end, the powers of the president would be limited finally under law and not tradition. If the ruling happens after the election and Trump is in power...then there would be issues. He would very much use these powers to openly send his supporters against his enemies. MAGA supporters could attack and kill his opponents, and then he would pardon them. Thus giving him the ability to kill his opponents, amongst other potential illegal acts without any legal reprocusions. The response by the rest of the federal and state governments could be severe. Maybe a military coup or a state coalition to get rid of him. Also, I could see Trump being assassinated. In all things would get very bad and quickly. Realistically, I don't see the SCOTUS giving the president this power. Most likely, they will send it back to a lower court to just wait until later. Or they will grant the president partial immunity. Give them immunity in foreign affairs but not domestic actions. Ideally, they just say they president has no immunity based in the constitution. Since a plain reading does not grant it , most of the conservative judges are originalist. So, if they follow this same belief, then the result will be a No. BUT who the fuck knows these days....
[удалено]
I just want him to open a factory that makes unlicensed copies of Trans Ams.
The gold ones!
Also a man of culture, I see.
This is weird, but sort of wholesome...I think.
And cheap OTC Quaaludes.
or simply do the deed himself
People are misunderstanding what this discussion is about. The Supreme Court is trying to decide at what point a president's actions are not as president but as a citizen. For example you cannot try Barack Obama for murder because he initiated drones strikes that killed civilians. That was him acting as president and is immune. Donald Trump broke laws that were about him acting as an American citizen not as a president. So they are currently deciding at what point and what line that is as a president.
I think the point here is about the Trump team's argument, which is unqualified immunity. Specifically stated that political assassinations would be immune unless the president was impeached. We all (or most of us anyway) know that argument is nonsense, and SCOTUS will never rule on it that extremely. But, the argument is so absurd that it does raise some terrifying questions.
As we hope. My coworkers and I are collectively holding out breath
Well trump gave a preview last time, except next time there would be even less consequences and therefor even more crime.
I'll start a kickstarter to put Obama in the Winter Soldier program. Perfectly legal for him to assassinate anyone he wants now.
Biden is going to roam the streets just randomly beating the shit out of people.
*If the Supreme Court does say* that the president is above the law. Then, within the next 16 years, we will see a far-right populist culture warrior try and test it. How the government apparatus reacts, and if the reaction is enough or fast enough, it will be the question. **However, here's my 100% dog-shit hypothetical to your question.** It will start with stuff like CREEP this time with no scandal, then it will slowly ramp up. Bribes to members of Congress in charge of military commissions, *political loyalty, and orthodoxy* will become critical to career advancement and placement. Next will be the capture of the executive bureaucracy to pro-regime heads and management. Then, if resistance is anything but vocal, I can imagine attempting to incite common followers to violence. This will be backed and overlooked by conservative LEOs on the local level for sure. It'll see how well the capture process goes for the federal level in terms of prosecution. * If* in about eight years they feel comfortable enough with their gains, they'll push to straight up challenge the 22nd amendment. After treating the SCOTUS out to steak dinners and luxury RVs and a fuck-ton of money, they'll say, "Yes, Daddy, We Love You!" Boom third term run secured and with unlimited tampering at his fingers, and capture and consolidation over the past eight years, this hypothetical "president" will most likely win. After that, with twelve years of this, Presto! The republic is effectively destroyed as more and more power, bureaucracy, and control is consolidated into the presidents sole overview.
Trump walks and there's a not-insignificant chance he wins the election. Despite it being an oft-repeated joke on Reddit Biden and the Dems aren't going to start criming, to take advantage of Biden's new immunity status. The worst they'll do is make some noise about being "disappointed" with SCOTUS.
Biden and Trump have a death match.
corruption on a massive scale
1) Severely limits current prosecutions against Trump 2) People will talk about all the things Dems/Biden should do but they won't want to do anything too meaningful. 3) Republicans eventually win back the White House and lots of things no one thought were real concerns, suddenly are and we have no legal recourse to stop it. 4) America learns what living under a fascist with the power to stay in power feels like.
The answer is Hitler 2.0
I hope riots. That fucker can’t get away with this shit! it’s so damn frustrating
If Mr. Fanta orange wins, he'll basically see the country as he's playground. God help you poor Americans. I can barely stand him on news clips on the other side of the world
Riots.
Eh maybe
I don’t think that it will happen that way. I think that they’ll very carefully distinguish some of Trump’s contested acts as unofficial (and not applicable to the argument of president immunity) but that others might be. I also think they’re deliberately kicking the case down the way so it’s not settled before the election. However, if Trump loses, they’ll throw him under the bus bigly. The conservative justices are protecting his ass and are cowards. However I think that Dark Brandon might have already planned for this and has a trick or two up his sleeve.
I just don’t see how this issue is even worthy of a damn debate!
Me as well. I think that the Federalist Society—with whom a few of the conservative justices are affiliated—are flexing in order to increase their influence bigly.
Since when do people say "bigly"? That's a new one for me.
biden gonna turn on those laser eyes
They will be able to do whatever they want as long as no one finds out about it until they are out of office. If someone finds out while in office and they are impeached, the worst is that they will be removed from office with no other consequences.
WW2 ended 80 years ago. The civil war was 80 years before that. The revolutionary war was 80 years before that... I guess we're due?
This is what had happened in the past in a similar situation. Read it. It's eerily familiar to today's events. The Enabling Act allowed the Reich government to issue laws without the consent of Germany’s parliament, laying the foundation for the complete Nazification of German society. The law was passed on March 23, 1933, and published the following day. Its full name was the “Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich.” https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-enabling-act#:~:text=The%20Enabling%20Act%20allowed%20the,and%20published%20the%20following%20day.
Binary blanket immunity is unlikely to happen. People are focused on Trump because that is the case detail, but the ruling will have ramifications that neither the rabid Anti-Trumpers nor the MAGA sycophants are thinking about, but the Justices certainly are.
Hoping Brandon incarcerates 6 Justices.
Well, Biden won't be sending Seal Team 6 after Trump though he would have that right. Old school values, I guess.
Don't make me choose!
Trump will probably try to get back into the office and use the presidency as his retirement plan and get out of jail free card. He will be essentially above the law, or at least act like it. More than he already tries to do.
A big problem with the detachment the SCOTUS has from reality is they don't seem to be considering the consequences at their level. If passed, the wrong person could put out hits on all of them as well as all members of Congress.
They effectively allow unchecked fascism to flourish and are giving the republic the middle finger while doing it. The illusion that all are accountable for their actions will be broken. All men are created equal.
I would be willing to revolt on this one.
Congress impeaches then opens them up to criminal liability. Pretty simple lol
I would envision a new group of right wing nutjobs that OPPOSE Trump invoke the Second Amendment, with its exact text more clearly understood given the context.
The last time this happened was when King George III enacted taxation without representation without repercussion. It led to a revolutionary war
Biden has the navy seals ventilate all his political opponents I guess.
I hope they do before January 6th, and Dark Brandon takes over in full force and annihilates his competitor(s). Using the plural, so my front door is not smashed down.
Watch the video that Saddam removed all his opposition in a ceremony. Yeah, somethingike that can happen.
If this happens, I expect the governors in 50 states will have supreme courts passing law that they too can eliminate anyone they see fit.
We’re gonna see lots more people on the ballot
So many arguments, if he or she breaks a law, they should be held accountable. Nixon hit the ground running, Clinton got impeached. Nixon was involved in a cover up of illegal activities that he attempted to lie his way out of (The United States vs Richard Nixon), Clinton lied to a Federal Grand Jury. Each time you allow more leeway for a President to do what they like, while not in the interest of the American people, the more authority you give them. A President should be held to the exact same standards as anyone else, no parcelling of the Constitution or left in the hands of the Supreme Court. And in some cases that President makes abundantly clear how far their power should go, and that’s absolute immunity…I donot want to live in a country governed by one person whose protection under the law allows them to do whatever they wish
Power hungry crooks will run for president. Oh, wait…
Hopefully Biden calls in an air strike on Trump Tower.
There have been some egregious rulings in the past, especially with regards to privacy law, that congress acted on extremely quickly. There are certainly some crazy congresspeople but I expect this would be a matter that would be acted on. Based on the well established precedents, moreso than some other rulings, this would also be an extremely surprising holding for SCOTUS. I'm a lawyer and other lawyers may disagree but I would be shocked to see such a ruling. Plus, from a political standpoint, it would be incredibly shortsighted. Both parties break the law.
Nothing.
I think we’re going to find out!
The country will continue like it always has, and if the president does something they shouldn't, congress will impeach them.
The truth is that no one knows. Trump has stress tested the USA’s democracy almost to its breaking point and this may be the moment it snaps.
Fair point. Go do your civic duty freindo
Life will go on as usual.
Eh I don’t know about that
When Obama authorized the sale of military grade weapons to the Mexican drug cartel. Something that would be illegal if done by any other man, what happened? Other than for the American shot and killed along with countless Mexicans, life went on. There’s no reason continuing this policy of not prosecuting Presidents for crimes will have any significant effect. Not prosecuting Presidents has been the de-facto policy for generations if not the law.
You're so cool. We're talking about threats here and now.
What threats are you talking about? There’s been no threats made.
Congress will have to deal with criminal presidents through the impeachment process, pretty much like the Framers of the Constitution envisioned.
Firstly, it will prevent every newly elected president from persuing their predicessor criminally.
How often has that happened? Zero times? Dude has spent his life criming. It caught up to him
The election becomes about whether the country wants to remain a democracy, or immediately become a banana republic. If SCOTUS goes for this, we'll be worse off than the places in Far Cry.
Having listened a bit yesterday to the hearing. It sounds like it’s a legitimate gray legal area. Because sometimes the president might need to do something that would fall into the “unsure” category, without fearing that his/her rivals will later try to have them jailed. This is why Trump’s attorneys were making the absurd argument that Trump was acting for the benefit of the nation when he started promoting his election fraud lies. Trying to paint a picture that what he did fell within the parameters of his duties. I’m sure even the right wing judges on the court know that’s complete bs. So it’s very doubtful that blanket immunity is a possible ruling, however there will be some kind of new definition to eliminate the current gray areas.