225
Supreme Court agrees to quick review of Trump’s presidential immunity claim
(www.courthousenews.com)
Immunity while head of state? Sounds like a monarchy to me.
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
225 points (97.5% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2410 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
And if SCOTUS says the President is an absolute monarch? What would you want Biden to do next? The GQP just never thinks this through.
And if SCOTUS says the President is an absolute monarch? What would you want Biden to do next?
Use his powers as monarch to remove the justices that gave him such power, then abdicate back down to president.
It would be in the most Biden way possible too. Dissolve the current court, instate mildly progressive liberals, and order a reruling to remove his power
Could we also have him set term limits on the new court and get rid of lifetime appointments?
Ah, but then it wouldn't be the Biden way. He goes just far enough to be disappointed he didn't go all in
Arrest the bunch of them. "The Republican party is hereby disbanded, arrests begin in 5 minutes."
(throwback for the kids in the room):
Can't believe that this became an international faux pas. Reagan was absolutely a spawn of Satan, but come on. Unless "We begin bombing in 5 minutes" was broadcasted live (the report says it was an audio test) there's no way it should be read as anything other than gallows humor.
Eh, gallows humor from a random nobody is one thing. Joking about basically ending the world as we know it from someone who literally has the power to end the world as we know it is another.
This faux pas is certainly not at the top of my list of criticisms of Reagan, but he did deserve some shit for it.
You make a great point. But at the same time, there's so much meme potential
Oh, man, it was this whole thing back then...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_begin_bombing_in_five_minutes
The GQP absolutely thought this through...Biden either won't have the balls to do anything about this, or he croaks trying to actually accomplish something.
This is the checkmate they've been working at since Bush Jr.
Not at all.. Trump wasn't born into his position. This is fascism, friend.
Edit: I mean, he was born into money, though...
Pretty sure most of them don't even have that anymore
The legit argument for immunity is that a president is completely immune for official actions, anything else done while he is president but not official presidential action can't be charged while president but can be charged after his term.
Assuming they aren't charging anything that could be construed as an official presidential action, this should be 9-0 of course you can be charged.
Anything illegal should be charge-worthy, official or not, just like any other office. Actively holding the title of president entities immunity only as a delay, because that role also serves as commander-in-chief for the US. Having that seat empty during a prosecution could be hugely disruptive to the executive branch and strategically unwise for geopolitics.
But once the new president takes over, there's no longer any reason to delay the judicial process with temporary immunity.
At least, that's how I learned it in 6th grade, midwest public school.
Which is precisely why trump wants to be a dictator. If he stays President, he’s perpetually immune.
I'm actually pro prosecution / impeachment of presidents for that reason, we have a backup available so it doesn't actually hurt us. But I have to disagree on official actions. Sending someone to war can't be reckless endangerment, having someone drone striked can't be murder, we can't have the president sued for damages every time they sign a law that harms a business or industry.
Signing laws isn't illegal in the first place.
And I want to say I might be completely okay with holding those in power responsible for endangerment / drone strikes / murder / war.
His efforts to overturn the election came about while he was still President. Trump was the President of the United States on January 6th, 2021. Biden was not the President until January 20th, 2021.
Framing it that way, this is getting worse all the time.
He was president but it wasn't official action so he could be charged after he was done being president aka now.
My prediction: 7-2 with Alito and Thomas holding out for divine right of kings.
something something rich historical tradition something something acts of supremacy
If they give him immunity, they are basically saying any president can rig an election with no consequences. It would completely undermine our system of government.
Clarence Thomas: heavy breathing
Nice to see Smith isn't willing to put up with this shit. SCOTUS - even the conservative members - will quickly find that former presidents aren't kings, and that will be that.
And if they don't, that gives Biden free reign. "Oh? Presidents are immune? Well then..."
Yes, but they are deciding whether he can be held criminally liable while in office, which he was on 1/6/21.
That's still deciding if former presidents are kings or not. If former presidents are shielded by their former office against any crime they did while in office, Biden could take out a gun and shoot Trump at a debate, declare himself the winner, and march off stage with no post-presidency repercussions. It's basically a license to commit literally all the crimes.
That’s fair, but I think it is worth noting that former presidents can commit crimes both in office and after their term. This particular former president has done both it would seem, so that’s another reason to be clear about what is being judged. In this case it is for crimes while in office.
True, agreed.
For emphasis:
The decision is not an agreement to hear Smith's case, but rather an agreement to review his petition faster than normal.
So any score guessing is a bit premature. They have not been granted cert.
I’ve got popcorn!