I don't understand why the Dems don't just hardball this. There must have been a lot of conversations on "what if scotus rules for trump and makes the president immune". Preferably in a way that is specifically problematic for conservative SCOTUS judges.
Because Decorum is more important than anything else to them.
At this point, I think it only seems that way. I just don't think they actually want to use power for anything good.
Official is when incident kept on camera, microphone or there were eyewitnesses. Other stuff didn't happen. Even when caught with a smoking gun.
My condolences for being a nation on the continual brink of Christianish-Fascism.
Guess those student loan forgiveness programs are back on the menu
"By official decree, all education shall now be free, and all debts accrued for the purposes of education are forgiven. If this should result in the dissolution of predatory lenders and universities whose business existence depends on this type of debt, then so be it. It's time to adapt or go extinct, Jack."
If only he had the balls to do that.
maybe he does, let me check...
... ah, sorry, the test results came back democrat.
The problem is the courts would just knock it down right away. Biden could try to ignore the courts, using their own definition of immunity, but it would absolutely precipitate a Constitutional Crisis.
But what if he officially ignores the courts?
Well then it's a Crisis of The Constitution. Completely Different. :)
No it wouldn't. That's what the surpreme courts ruling was all about.
You mistake this supreme court for one with ethics and consistency.
They declared the president is king. Somehow everyone loses their mind saying Trump can do anything now.
But Biden is the current king so either the ruling means nothing or Biden can do anything now.
Nuance.
They didn't declare the President king. They stated official acts are effectively immune and left a gaping hole in the definition of what constitutes "official", likely leaving individual assessment to the courts which can be appealed right up to SCOTUS.
I don't know what else to tell you. The court won't support Biden using their ruling. It has been clearly captured in the most partisan manner.
He should specifically do everything they ruled he can't do but open every order with, "As an official act..." just to rub their idiocy in their faces.
The only way to rub their idiocy in their faces is make them suffer actual fucking consequences for once in their miserable lives, and the man they just gave the power to do that won't.
Is there still proponent of american exceptionalism among democrats?
I mean all those things are very "banana republic" in essence.
The US is the inventor of Banana Republics.
And yes very much so. White Supremacism and American Exceptionalism are both deeply ingrained in the US political system and most of its actors.
For bananas yeah but the idea of removing the local government and replacing it with a friendlier one to the exploiter of goods from the invading country is not a US invention.
I'm aware that presidents are allowed to do what they like now, as long as it's "official". I'm not aware of what republicans are saying biden isn't allowed to do, though. Can someone please fill me in?
Biden has to do it first. Then the republicans decide it’s unofficial and change him. Works great!
There is zero ambiguity in that. I'm so glad we are very clear on the definition.
It's untested. The SC didn't define what "official" means.
So when it comes into question, it can be kicked back up to them to decide on a case-by-case basis.
The Chief Justice did give two examples, as a kind of playbook for Trump and the people behind Project 2025. The two things he mentions that for sure fall within the absolute can't investigate/question/use as evidence/prosecute "official" acts are:
You forgot "use the military".
That's it. Use the military in any way and it's official. Have Seal Team 6 murder your opponents, and it's official. Drop a 2000lbs bomb on the political convention of your opponents, and it's offical.
What Roberts didn't do, was say what counts as unofficial. He spent a bunch of time listing out times when the president is completely immune from prosecution, and not a single sentence for when he can be prosecuted.
Mostly because he couldn't think of any, Not a one because he wants Trump to be the next king.
Roberts did not list the military as one of the "official acts" that would be immune, because Trump doesn't need the military yet to stay out of jail. The list was a blue print to keeping Trump out of jail should he win the election. The military would however likely fall under what the majority of the SCOTUS would call an action that would have "presumed immunity", but they really left that up to the SCOTUS to decide on a case by case basis (aka does it help Trump or one of the Justice's "friends").
Commanding the military is one of the examples Roberts gave as an always Official act that comes with complete immunity. It was talked about very briefly in the decision, and expanded upon in the dissents because the dissents pointed out that using seal team 6 to kill Americans is now completely legal.
I did find the part that listed the military as one of the Presidents office acts, you are correct on that. I also found this on page 62, that is the basis for the questioning about Seal Team 6 during arguments, and again in the SCOTUS descent. I read it as effectively saying that if the President uses police or military to do an "unlawful killing" then because they are "exempt" he would be immune. So the President isn't allowed to murder in a foreign country, but if he uses the military it's an official act and exempt? This reads to me like it only stops the President from personally being a Rambo, carrying out hit jobs, but Trump was a draft dodger (so ...). Any lawyers here? I don't see an instance of the President carrying out an "unlawful" killing without using the police or military. Except if maybe this is one of those things left over from when a President would duel, or people in Congress would bludgeon someone with a cane?
Congress has concurrent authority over many Government functions, and it may sometimes use that authority to regulate the President’s official conduct, including by criminal statute. Article II poses no barrier to prosecution in such cases.
I would thus assess the validity of criminal charges predicated on most official acts—i.e., those falling outside of the President’s core executive power—in two steps. The first question is whether the relevant criminal statute reaches the President’s official conduct. Not every broadly worded statute does. For example, §956 covers conspiracy to murder in a foreign country and does not expressly exclude the President’s decision to, say, order a hostage rescue mission abroad. 18 U. S. C. §956(a). **The underlying murder statute, however, covers only “unlawful” killings. §1111. The Office of Legal Counsel has interpreted that phrase to reflect a public-authority exception for official acts involving the military and law enforcement. **
Here's a lawyer's take on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXQ43yyJvgs
It's worse than you think.
#2 is because, in the election interference case against Trump, one piece of evidence being used by the prosecution is that Trump instructed his Attorney General to send letters alleging that mass voter fraud was found to several state election officials, despite knowing that claim was false.
SCOTUS essentially ruled that even if that action could be considered a crime, Trump is immune from punishment since it's an "official act".
Which is patently absurd, to be absolutely clear. Every Justice that agreed to it is a fucking liar, and should be charged with violating their oaths and treason against the Republic and its people.
Or executed by official act. Whatever.
New USA anthem just dropped
Wait what the hell?
Is this really where the tune for My Country Tis of Thee came From?
Hah! I had no idea.
Our anthem is also set to British music. It makes sense, we were a colony.
I thought they punted that question of finding if Trumps acts were in official capacity back down to lower courts to decide?
Yes but they can always decide the lower court got it wrong and overrule them. It's a nice way of waiting until after the election to make the decision.
Nobody knows or cares what the actual decision says.
Easy, you just get rid of the supreme court part
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
