There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

The justices of the supreme court ruled that Trump was immune and effectively above the law while being president. What is now stopping Biden from bringing a gun to the next debate?

If inciting an insurrection towards their own government is an action without legal repercussions, I don’t see how the law would be less lenient about straight up firing a gun at an opponent.

I by no means want any party to resolve to violent tactics. So even though I play with the thought, I really don’t want anything like it to happen. I am just curious if it’s actually the case that a sitting president has now effectively a licence to kill.

What am I missing?

razorwiregoatlick ,
@razorwiregoatlick@lemmy.world avatar

They did not say that he was immune. They said that the president has immunity for certain acts. What acts? Whatever acts they, the SCOTUS, decide they should be immune from. So Biden could shoot Trump dead but the court would rule that that was illegal because some bullshit reason.

callouscomic ,

I think that “some bullshit reason” would be murder.

People have gotten fucking ridiculous lately.

HasturInYellow ,

They said “some bullshit reason” because the same logic would very clearly not be applied to trump if he were to do the same. Think a bit. It’s ok.

sanguinepar ,
@sanguinepar@lemmy.world avatar

The bullshit in this example is not that they would find Biden guilty but that they could/would find Trump innocent.

That would be bullshit. Biden killing Trump being ruled as murder would not be bullshit, it’d be accurate.

samus12345 ,
@samus12345@lemmy.world avatar

Guilt or innocence is irrelevant in this case. The only thing that matters is whether the President was acting in an “official” capacity or not. If a Republican does it, it was official. If a Democrat does, it was not.

sanguinepar ,
@sanguinepar@lemmy.world avatar

I agree, that’s how it would go. But you can’t start advocating for a Democratic president to murder his opponent with official impunity, just because of some politically motivated bullshit SCOTUS ruling. That way total anarchy and facism lies.

If people start calling for that, then it’s no better than the shit show of a second Trump presidency may be. The rule of law matters, and it should apply to all equally. If Trump did it and got away with it, it would be bullshit, he should not get away with it. If Biden did it, he should not get away with it either, whether it’s “official” or not. Murder is murder.

samus12345 ,
@samus12345@lemmy.world avatar

You’re correct, and I wasn’t saying otherwise. I’m just pointing out that the corrupt SCOTUS has set themselves up as the arbiter of consequences for the President. They can protect or not on a whim, with no way for anyone else to challenge them.

sanguinepar ,
@sanguinepar@lemmy.world avatar

Agreed. It’s properly fucked up. Genuinely worried about the state of the States in the next few years if the Dems don’t get their acts together and win in November (and even if they do, tbh)

samus12345 ,
@samus12345@lemmy.world avatar

Same. Dems winning presidential elections feels like a drowning person who’s desperately thrashing around managing to get a lungful of air before sinking again.

Cryophilia ,

If people start calling for that, then it’s no better than the shit show of a second Trump presidency may be.

I cannot disagree more strongly. Biden has this chance to RESTORE rule of law, which SCOTUS has already shredded. I will take the risk of Biden becoming a dictator over the near certainty that Trump will.

card797 ,

That court also wouldn’t be able to have the president arrested. He would need to be impeached and removed from office before any of that could happen.

timewarp ,
@timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

So… Biden could target SCOTUS as being treasonous & appoint new justices under immunity with the three remaining liberal justices quickly ruling he has executive privilege to do so?

SkyezOpen ,

Yes. I joked about this scenario when I didn’t think the scotus would hand down such a fucked up ruling, but we’re halfway to some really funny shit.

s38b35M5 ,
@s38b35M5@lemmy.world avatar

So Biden could shoot Trump dead but the court would rule that that was illegal because some bullshit reason.

Ah! But with what evidence? They also ruled that presidential conduct (paraphrasing here) can’t be used as evidence.

Asafum ,

True, but they are also the ones who decide what they can and cannot do without recourse from anyone else (because we need 2/3 of Congress to impeach which is a non-starter.) so they can rule one way and then rule another for whatever reason they want.

Our “justices” (/vomit…) don’t have to have any qualifications, we just pay lip service to norms so we (read: the federalist society) choose vaguely “acceptable” people to be justices, but you or I could be one too which really means that they have almost nothing to do with the actual law. We’re a fucking joke.

s38b35M5 ,
@s38b35M5@lemmy.world avatar

We’re a fucking joke.

But nobody is laughing. I’m shivering…

MeThisGuy ,

pretty sure the rest of the world is having a good laugh

cmoney ,

The supreme cunts can just change their ruling whenever they feel like it, so as long as it’s their boss tRump it’s fine but anyone they tRump doesn’t like they’ll just make another decision saying you can’t do that anymore.

Cosmicomical ,

He must say: “This debate is officially over” before pulling the trigger.

Hossenfeffer ,
@Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk avatar

“Allow me to retort!”

Illuminostro ,

You spelled “reload” wrong.

AgentOrangesicle ,
@AgentOrangesicle@lemmy.world avatar

Hammer falls “Overruled.”

Zoomboingding ,
@Zoomboingding@lemmy.world avatar

I. DECLARE. ASSASSINATION!

atro_city ,

Is this the beginning of civil war?

richieadler ,

I always think these movies end being used as instruction manuals.

NeoNachtwaechter ,

sitting president has now effectively a licence to kill.

Just think about how many wars they have started: They had this license all the time!

Somethingcheezie ,

Wars are against foreigners not US citizens. Not against the flag and the constitution it represents.

Domestic case law for will need to test their ruling.

NeoNachtwaechter ,

Wars are against foreigners not US citizens.

Always a riddle to me how Usamericans do not respect basic human rights of all other people in the world. For example, the right to live.

Regarding our example here: your distinction seems a bit meaningless because ordering a war means not only ordering the death of other people in the world. War is always against more than one party. It means also ordering the death of Usamerican people, soldiers and probably civilians.

Fetus ,

Remember, the wars are fought against brown people, and US soldiers are poor people. Both of these groups are perfect raw materials for the military industrial complex to convert into profit.

NeoNachtwaechter ,

Thank you for confirming my concerns.

atrielienz ,

The answer really is that desperation is a design feature not a flaw. The system is working as intended. And people who speak up about it don’t get silenced. They just get caught out fighting to survive unless they’re already very rich. So for every Bernie Sanders you’ve got thousands of poor people who would fight for the same but not at the expense of feeding their families and losing their homes.

Gordon ,

Usamericans

Lol. That was 2007. I feel so old.

Pandoras_Can_Opener ,
@Pandoras_Can_Opener@mander.xyz avatar

Somebody should whinge about the unborn being aborted via carpet bombing or similar. I’d like to see the cognitive dissonance.

NeoNachtwaechter ,

Is it you, Rambo?

x1gma ,

So, the “license to kill” is fine, as long it’s non US citizens?

Your definition of democracy and basic human rights is fucking unhinged.

andrewta ,

Interesting reaction to what was a logical statement. He was simply stating how things are.

Cosmicomical ,

Logic without empathy is the hallmark of psychopathy

flicker ,

Observing a system you’re in and have no control over must be done objectively.

pyre ,

don’t be ridiculous; it says official acts, so he can’t bring a gun himself.

he has to use seal team 6 instead. see? democracy isn’t dead!

DragonTypeWyvern ,

“As an official act as President, I have issued an Executive Order that I blast Trump in the face.”

Boom, checkmate libruls

FuglyDuck ,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

For the record, that would be an illegal order and should be refused by everyone involved in the military chain.

(Whether or not it is refused is a different matter.)

They sent back the question of what is an official act. And when the judge comes back with something like “official acts are those in which a president is acting in an official capacity as the president to fulfill obligations and duties of the president.” (IANAL….so there’s probably some anal retentive detail that is super critical in missing)

In any case, when challenging the election, that is not an official act- that was something done by Trump-the-candidate.

Inviting foreign dignitaries, however frequently is. (But probably not when selling out America and other spies to keep compromat from leaking)

Organizing an insurrection in the US never is, however.

I’m alarmed by the alarm in the dissent- they probably know where this is going, but POTUS has enjoyed some immunity anyhow as far as official acts go. And when it’s kept to a reasonable understanding… that’s more or less good.

Their alarm suggests that the majority here is not going to have a reasonable understanding when that gets appealed.

retrospectology ,
@retrospectology@lemmy.world avatar

He’s the commander in chief, ordering a seal team or the CIA to assassinate someone is an official act and legal now. What you fail to mention in your haste to try to downplay this is that they also made it impossible to present evidence of crimes by the president, so any non-public action by the president is de facto legal. It would be impossible to prosecute because even if you gathered evidence he ordered the hit, you couldn’t use it in court.

Yes, it’s that bad. No, it’s not that people are over reacting.

Read Sotomayor’s dissent, she says explicitly that this gives the president legal immunity against assassinations.

criitz ,

It’s very clear this will be abused, most notably by letting Trump off the hook for his insurrection. That’s why there’s huge alarm.

tinyVoltron ,
@tinyVoltron@lemmy.world avatar

Reasonable

Who’s to say what’s reasonable.

when challenging the election, that is not an official act

Why not? He could make the argument that the election was stolen and ignoring it is in the best interest of the United states.

FuglyDuck ,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

Why not? He could make the argument that the election was stolen and ignoring it is in the best interest of the United states.

because that act is not POTUS’s job. He’s making the argument as a candidate. he’s not supposed to be part of that process because he’s biased.

as for whose to say what’s reasonable… that is the problem. right now a dangerous number of SCOTUS are bought and paid for, or are absolutely partisan hacks.

tinyVoltron ,
@tinyVoltron@lemmy.world avatar

His job is to support and defend the Constitution of the United states. You certainly can argue that protecting the integrity of the voting system is part of that job.

atrielienz ,

But that doesn’t sanction military members to break the law or the UCMJ. And that’s the point. They do not have immunity, qualified or otherwise. The order would be unlawful simply because of the issuing parties bias and personal gain from the act.

I’m not saying there are not people in the military who would follow this type of order. I’m saying that they don’t have the protections or immunity, qualified or otherwise, and honestly, a presidential pardon doesn’t do anything for them if the state decides to prosecute them. Plus military members are basically the only people in the US subject to legal double jeopardy because they can be tried by the military separately from state and federal law.

tinyVoltron ,
@tinyVoltron@lemmy.world avatar

The supreme Court is specifically saying the order is legal. He could say it’s part of his official duties, in which case the order itself would be legal. His official duties include commanding the armed forces. If the president gives an order, a marine or a Navy SEAL cannot choose to not follow that order on legal grounds. They can choose to not follow on moral grounds but that refusal in itself would be illegal. Should it come to that, I would hope the vast majority of the armed forces would refuse the order.
In her dissent, justice Sotomayor specifically said that the president could order an assassination and could not be prosecuted for it. I am assuming she knows more than you are I about how the legal system works.

atrielienz , (edited )

That conflicts not just with other established law, but also with what I actually said and what the ruling says. The problem with it is that the order can’t be considered lawful regardless of what the Supreme court ruled because it doesn’t fit all the criteria of a lawful order.

“What is considered a lawful order in the military? It must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order. Finally, it must be a specific mandate to do or not to do a specific act. In sum, an order is presumed lawful if it has a valid military purpose and is a clear, precise, narrowly drawn mandate.”

ucmjdefense.com/…/the-lawfulness-of-orders.html

One other thing is that you’re quoting dissenting members of the SCOTUS, not the ruling itself. That’s a single interpretation of it, and one deliberately intended to alarm people so that they push back against it.

pyre ,

yeah Sotomayor probably doesn’t know what she’s talking about, right

atrielienz , (edited )

That not what I said. What I said is their comments aren’t legal precedent. That’s not the same thing. Or are we taking everything that’s ever come out of Clarence Thomas’s mouth as legal precedent now?

www.snopes.com/news/…/scotus-ruling-seal-team/

Cosmicomical ,

For official business

Ensign_Crab ,

His own devotion to ineffectiveness.

Lost_My_Mind ,

What is stopping BIDEN??? I’d say empathy and a good set of morals. Regardless of if you think he’s fit to be president, I think nobody sane would argue that he’s a good man. He’s a good person. Even if he could do so consequence free, HE wouldn’t.

The question is, what’s stopping the next president with no morals? And that’s a far more chilling scenario.

HawlSera ,

Empathy and morals would mean putting the country above his personal convictions…

nemith ,

Grip strength

FaceDeer ,
@FaceDeer@fedia.io avatar

His wrist would break, but it might be worth it.

K1nsey6 ,
@K1nsey6@lemmy.world avatar

You were missing the entire thing because that’s not what the ruling was from SCOTUS. All it did was reiterate the current responsibility of the president that he is immune from some of his actions of his job function when acting within the purview of his official function. He Would not be granted immunity at all if he was doing something that broke the law or was acting on a personal nature

FaceDeer ,
@FaceDeer@fedia.io avatar

Would be nice if SCOTUS had defined what "official acts" actually were.

dQw4w9WgXcQ OP ,

So it protects official acts without actually specifying what an official act is. If incitement of insurrection is an official act, it seems like the definition is quite broad.

vzq ,

he is immune from some of his actions of his job function when acting within the purview of his official function.

Goose.jpg

WHAT ACTIONS? WHAT ACTIONS MOTHERFUCKER?

ulkesh ,
@ulkesh@lemmy.world avatar

So then Trump should still be prosecuted, right? Since he allegedly broke the law 91 times, 34 of which he has already been found guilty of exactly that… right?

Pretty sure that the point of the ruling is to grant Trump considerably more ammunition to fight with since it wasn’t an outright “no, he’s not immune.” Any hedging that this was not a political move by the very conservative court is willful ignorance of reality.

We as a nation have only two hopes left: that the public creates an overwhelming lopsided victory for Biden in November (unlikely since nearly half of the country would suck Trump’s very tiny penis if given the chance), or that Chutkan and other judges don’t let this moronic Supreme Court decision change their rulings since supposedly the decision leaves it in these judges hands. And it’s now very unlikely anything will occur prior to November so we may be left with only the one hope.

Make no mistake — Trump is a criminal, a convicted felon, and Trump supporters love it. Because yet again they think they’re “owning the libs” when in reality they are destroying the republic with their sycophancy. I sincerely hope they each get what they want and the country gets irrevocably destroyed — so that their owning of the libs is complete and maybe, just maybe, they’ll finally shut — the — fuck — up.

Lost_My_Mind ,

nearly half of the country would suck Trump’s very tiny penis if given the chance

Please don’t put such imagery in my head…

razorwiregoatlick ,
@razorwiregoatlick@lemmy.world avatar

Except that the supremacy court gets to decide. You know, the court that has currently sitting members who are not even hiding their support for Trump. Acting like this is perfectly fine and not a full assault on our democracy means you are either intentionally trying to play down this act or you are a fool.

j4k3 ,
@j4k3@lemmy.world avatar

He should start with the supreme court if he has an ounce of worth.

fubo , (edited )

The immunity from criminal prosecution has to do with official acts, not personal acts. It wouldn’t apply to Biden personally shooting Trump.

It would apply to a military proclamation as commander-in-chief that the Trump movement is a domestic insurrectionist movement that carried out an armed attack on the US Congress; that the Trump movement thus exists in a state of war against the United States; and directing the US Army to decapitate the movement by capturing or killing its leaders, taking all enemy combatants as prisoners of war, etc. (Now consider that the Army is only obliged to follow constitutional orders, and would have Significant Questions about the constitutionality of such an order.)

Further, the immunity is only from criminal prosecution and would not protect Biden from impeachment and removal from office by Congress while the Army is still figuring out whether the order is constitutional.

damnthefilibuster ,

So Biden could officially flood the supreme court with democrat judges, then officially ask them to revoke this stupid ruling?

fubo ,

Supreme Court judges must be confirmed by a majority of the Senate before being seated.

mosiacmango ,

The ratio is 50, and dems have 51 senators.

Biden can order the murder of all the right wing justices and then the senate can rubber stamp them in.

daltotron ,

the dems would never go for that, though, because then they’d actually be doing something. even if you took away oh no the two senators that somehow always conveniently oppose any action they take, you can be sure that they’d pull some other poor sap up out of the bowels in order to play the villain.

mosiacmango ,

I mean, I would hope senators of any party would oppose a president that “legally” murders a supreme court justice, let alone 6 of them.

The fact that these 6 have it coming is besides the point.

daltotron ,

I mean, do I have to say what you could just do to any senators which oppose you? It might be getting into coup territory, but eventually you’d probably reach a point where things just proceed as normal. Or you, as biden, could just take the L on it, make sure the newly stacked supreme court shuts it down, eat the, what, next 10 years of your life, if that, in federal prison or whatever it is, and blammo. Could probably even use the opportunity to step down but I imagine if he did some shit like that his approval rating might go through the glass dome protecting the flat earth aaaand post

Potatos_are_not_friends ,

Can the president declare them traitors and no longer fit for duty, thus ousting them physically?

K1nsey6 ,
@K1nsey6@lemmy.world avatar

They didn’t change anything other than reiterate what the president is immune from, what he has always been immune from and when he is not immune from prosecution

Anamnesis ,

Absolutely nothing about this case is a mere reiteration of anything before it.

dQw4w9WgXcQ OP ,

That sounds both crazy and not actually wildly far fetched. If the tables were turned and Trump was in the position of having the power to declare Biden’s movement as an enemy and carry out violent ways to stop them, I would almost expect it to happen.

Lost_My_Mind ,

It would make for an interesting movie, thatxs hopefully based in fiction.

GuStJaR ,

If you’ve not seen it already, watch Civil War. It’s excellent!

Lost_My_Mind ,

…gonna need some more info. Who’s in it? What year was it released? Is it on Hulu?

reev ,
  1. Nope
  2. Certainly not
  3. Tara Strong
GuStJaR ,

www.imdb.com/title/tt17279496/?ref_=ext_shr

👍

Lost_My_Mind ,

Wow. I was honestly expecting a movie called “Civil War” to be from the 60s, or something, and actually cover the American civil war. The bad part is, I probably can’t find this on dvd for $3.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

He can just pardon himself if he shoots Trump because he has immunity when issuing the pardon, since that is an official act.

fubo ,

Better do it in DC. Murder can be charged under state law, and the presidential pardon power only applies to federal charges.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

If the president crossed state lines to commit the murder it is federal!

fubo ,

For that matter, immunity from criminal charges for attempting to pardon oneself is not the same as the pardon being valid.

Pips ,

DC has a local criminal code.

daltotron ,

So, what happens if the president is charged? Is he automatically ousted? I mean, apparently a felon can run for president, so does them being a state criminal actually impede them at all, or no?

gramathy ,

Not just an official act, it’s explicitly a constitutional power which is given absolute immunity.

Squorlple ,
@Squorlple@lemmy.world avatar

Could Biden just say “I officially declare Trump the head of a terrorist organization” before firing the gun?

Anamnesis ,

All Biden has to do is claim that it’s an official act, because Trump is a terrorist, a threat to the Constitution, or some other questionable legal pretext. The problem is that there’s no remedy against such a claim. It could be litigated and go to SCOTUS again, who would have to decide whether it’s an official act or not. But this ruling gives no definite rule on what does or does not count as an official act.

sp3tr4l ,

So he just has to order the CIA to do it.

The… the CIA and many other government agencies have a stories history of doing absolutely insane things that are absolutely crimes…

…And many of those things only get brought to light by a whistle lower or leak ot some Watergate level fuckup of being caught in the act, or years or decades of actual investigation later.

There are so many problems with this ruling its mind boggling.

RegalPotoo ,
@RegalPotoo@lemmy.world avatar

The ruling is limited to “official acts”, but the same court is the one who decides if an act is official or not

Stern ,
@Stern@lemmy.world avatar

Feel like the next logical step is to throw the 6 justices in question into jail. They obviously can’t rule on their own trial so…

RegalPotoo ,
@RegalPotoo@lemmy.world avatar

Why couldn’t they? The supreme court is literally the final authority, and there is no mechanism to automatically remove a justice from the bench. There is an ethics code that says they should recuse themselves if they have a conflict in a case but it has no enforcement mechanism - two sitting justices have literally taken bribes in violation of the ethics code

Stern ,
@Stern@lemmy.world avatar

The obvious thing would be the 14th amendment due process clause. Can’t have a fair and unbiased case against someone if they’re the one judging it. Thats been affirmed as far back as The Federalist.

Beyond that, though I said it’d be up to the remaining 3 judges, I’m pretty sure it’d have to go up through the court system, and as Trump has shown, that can be slowboated to the end of time, or until those SC judges wisely decide to retire/get forcibly “retired”, after which the charges get dropped and everyone goes on their merry way, and then the courts (crazily enough!) establish again that the pres does not have that kind of immunity so history doesn’t repeat itself.

But I already know Joe wouldn’t play that kind of hardball.

Somethingcheezie ,

Well since 2 judges are pro Jan 6 I’d remove them too as part of the conspiracy.

Anticorp ,

The immunity from criminal prosecution has to do with official acts, not personal acts

Trying to overthrow a court and Congress sanctioned vote of the people to retain power is most certainly a personal act.

BigMacHole ,

That’s your OPINION!

Mjpasta710 ,

They can’t impeach if they can’t assemble a quorum.

actionjbone ,

You’re not missing anything. Based on the ruling, the president may now murder anyone they want - just so long as they claim it’s an official act.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

They can also pardon themselves if it isn’t an official act, since their pardon power is an official act.

aleph ,
@aleph@lemm.ee avatar

It’s not that simple; A court must rule that the action in question is an “official act”. As the SCOTUS intentionally declined to elaborate further on how this is defined, it will be up for the courts to decide what is and what is not covered by immunity.

Not that this couldn’t become subject to abuse and partisan rulings, but it’s more than just the presidental equivalent of

Michael scott declaring bankruptcy

Akuden ,

Misinformation. This does not allow the president to commit a crime and then say it was all in an official capacity. The very act of doing something criminal immediately puts it out of the realm of any official capacity. Obviously.

criitz ,

They will definitely use this ruling to allow a president to do criminal things. Obviously.

Donebrach ,
@Donebrach@lemmy.world avatar

You’ve clearly been living under a rock the past 8 years if you think this is true.

FanciestPants ,

Why would immunity be necessary if the act is not otherwise a crime?

Akuden ,

You truly believe the court gave full immunity for all things don’t you? You must have missed the part where it’s only for actions carrying out functions of the constitution. Everything else enjoys no such privilege. If a president commits a crime it is not protected. Further, a court (not the supreme court) can determine if the act was official or not.

FanciestPants ,

I did not assert that the court gave full immunity for all things, but will now suggest that not every crime is a violation of the constitution, or could not be committed while carrying out a function of the constitution.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •