Logical next step?

[Billiejeens]

So "the opposition was mean to me", so.I have a right to break the law. Is that your position?

The ruling actually codified that a President can't break the law, without consequences.

 

[berg80]

I don't know. It's not something I've really thought about. My general feeling is that, if we have to do that to succeed, we don't deserve to succeed.

What about you?

The beginning of our collective failure happened when Trump was elected. Events like what happened yesterday are simply evidence of its acceleration.

 

[Billiejeens]

A Harvard law professor takes exception to your analysis. Whom to believe?

Tricky.

A

as in 1?

 

[berg80]

The constant fear mongering by the press has certainly found fertile ground.

It isn't fear mongering. It's the new reality.

 

[Frankenstein]

First, I'm not advocating for any harm to come to trump, or any of his supporters, but in the light of the recent Supreme court ruling, serious uncomfortable questions present themselves. A reasonable person might believe trumps threats to seek revenge on his opponents, as well as his offer to trade environmental protections for a billion dollars present a threat to the constitution and the wellbeing of the country. Having sworn to protect and defend the constitution, and in light of the new presidential authority, it is Biden's duty to prevent any chance of trump winning the upcoming presidential election in any way his newfound authority allows. Should Biden, exercise his newfound authority by imprisoning trump in Guantanamo, or some other way? If congress opposes such actions, they can always impeach him if they can get enough of our representatives to find him guilty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/01/trump-immunity-scotus-decision-full-text-pdf/

Oh please do, I am begging you! The fact that Biden weaponized the DOJ to go after Trump is just fact, Garland willing to because they denied him the Supreme court appointment, so it's just revenge for him, but thank God because we dodged a serious unconstitutional Judge with his denial

 

[Frankenstein]

A Harvard law professor takes exception to your analysis. Whom to believe?

Tricky.

Harvard?

 

[Billiejeens]

I get that you left wing lunatics are just really pissed off that it looks as if attempt 472 to stop President Trump by any means necessary is going to fail.

This is not a good look for you all.
It's not good for the country.
What is not good for this country. by extension is not good for the world.

 

[Billiejeens]

It isn't fear mongering. It's the new reality.

There is no new reality in the real world.
This is only a fear in the Left-wing lunatic echo chamber.

 

[Billiejeens]

It has been almost 50 years since the high court ruled presidents have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits in Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

The court held ex-President Richard Nixon had such immunity for acts taken “within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.”

Yet in 1974’s United States v. Nixon, the court ruled a president is not immune from a criminal subpoena. Nixon was forced to comply with a subpoena for his White House tapes in the Watergate scandal from special counsel Leon Jaworski.

 

[the watcher]

It isn't fear mongering. It's the new reality.

It is the dawn of realization, hopefully, and the beginning of the end of co dependency and apathy.

 

[gipper]

First, I'm not advocating for any harm to come to trump, or any of his supporters, but in the light of the recent Supreme court ruling, serious uncomfortable questions present themselves. A reasonable person might believe trumps threats to seek revenge on his opponents, as well as his offer to trade environmental protections for a billion dollars present a threat to the constitution and the wellbeing of the country. Having sworn to protect and defend the constitution, and in light of the new presidential authority, it is Biden's duty to prevent any chance of trump winning the upcoming presidential election in any way his newfound authority allows. Should Biden, exercise his newfound authority by imprisoning trump in Guantanamo, or some other way? If congress opposes such actions, they can always impeach him if they can get enough of our representatives to find him guilty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/01/trump-immunity-scotus-decision-full-text-pdf/

The logical next step is imposing the 25th Amendment and removing the incompetent and incapacitated Genocide Joe.

 

[forkup]

I don't know. It's not something I've really thought about. My general feeling is that, if we have to do that to succeed, we don't deserve to succeed.

What about you?

I honestly don't know. It's a real ethical conundrum.

As I said. It's a choice between supporting what amounts to an autocracy in an attempt to prevent another autocracy.

Historically a very bad idea.

It's why I posed my original question. I don't think it's reasonable to assume Trump will not use this ruling in a corrupt way. On the other hand does that justify corruption on the side of the Democrats?

 

[Curried Goats]

You know, I'm kind of encouraged by the fact that now everyone has a reason to be as politically opposed to the white right as some of us have always been. It's about time some of you had a come to Jesus moment about what they're all about.

 

[forkup]

You are jumping the shark.

Can you point to the specific language that gives a President the right to have seal team 6 kill his political opponent?

TIA

may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional
power.

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire
into the President’s motives.


Giving orders to the military is an exclusive constitutional power of the president. He's the Commander in Chief. And since Roberts contents that his motives can't be questioned, it follows he can order an opponent killed by the military.

 

[forkup]

"moral Compass"

ha.

Yes, moral compass. Like NOT interfering in the prosecution of his own son although he technically has the right to at least pardon if he so chooses.

 

[Mac1958]

I honestly don't know. It's a real ethical conundrum.

As I said. It's a choice between supporting what amounts to an autocracy in an attempt to prevent another autocracy.

Historically a very bad idea.

It's why I posed my original question. I don't think it's reasonable to assume Trump will not use this ruling in a corrupt way. On the other hand does that justify corruption on the side of the Democrats?

Not in my book, but it could happen.

 

[SavannahMann]

SCOTUS has not given Biden nor any future president any "new found authority." They are merely confirming qualified immunity for the Executive, just like other legal entities have, law enforcement, etc. This is not a "get out of jail free" card to commit whatever illegal and criminal acts they want. Those acts are still illegal and criminal and not within the authority of the Executive.

The pearl clutching from you partisan clowns was more than predictable. In fact, if the ruling had gone the other way it would be MAGA wetting themselves claiming it's a conspiracy against Trump, somebody got to the judges, etc.

You all need to grow up.

They didn’t convey Qualified Immunity. They gave absolute immunity.

Let’s explain the difference.

Qualified Immunity means the Cop, or Official, claims to be acting to carry out his duty. That claim is examined, usually by courts. The claim is turned down if the cop violated well established civil rights or the laws.

The immunity is qualified. As long as the cop was doing what policy said and did not violate an established civil right or restriction, the cop is immune from civil or criminal penalty.

This applies mostly the civil litigation. The President had that long before Trump showed up. The question is Criminal Responsibility.

Cops and other officials face criminal penalties all the time for violating laws. So comparing the Qualified Immunity to what is now the law for Presidents is laughable.

The protections now in place for the President are greater than any leader short of Dictator in history. Thou shall not disobey or question the Chief Executive. There are no limits to his power.

Assassinating Trump is the obvious example, and I honestly hope that Biden does so immediately. But remember how awful Biden was for ordering the forgiveness of the Student Loans? That is now perfectly legal. He just has to declare it part of his official duties as President and you can’t hold him accountable.

Heck. Biden can order the election stopped. Nobody can say anything about it. You can’t even impeach Biden now.

Impeachment is for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. But Biden can’t be charged with any crime, as he is immune to prosecution. So you can’t impeach him as he can’t commit any crime. Anything he does is automatically legal so long as it is official business of the Government.

The only way to get the President to once again be held accountable would be to overturn the decision by the Supremes, or pass an Amendment. The only way any demand for an Amendment will be heard is if Biden shows how dangerous this power created out of thin air really is.

So President Biden. You should announce that you have found Trump to be a danger to America and are ordering any and all Federal Employees to assassinate him immediately. Anyone who fails to do so will be charged with dereliction of duty.

 

[SavannahMann]

I honestly don't know. It's a real ethical conundrum.

As I said. It's a choice between supporting what amounts to an autocracy in an attempt to prevent another autocracy.

Historically a very bad idea.

It's why I posed my original question. I don't think it's reasonable to assume Trump will not use this ruling in a corrupt way. On the other hand does that justify corruption on the side of the Democrats?

The only way to stop it is either a new Supreme Court decision limiting this new found authority. Or an amendment to do so.

Getting public opinion for an amendment would require serious public interest. That means Biden has to abuse this new power to create the atmosphere where it won’t happen ever again.

 

[martybegan]

It has been almost 50 years since the high court ruled presidents have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits in Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

The court held ex-President Richard Nixon had such immunity for acts taken “within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.”

Yet in 1974’s United States v. Nixon, the court ruled a president is not immune from a criminal subpoena. Nixon was forced to comply with a subpoena for his White House tapes in the Watergate scandal from special counsel Leon Jaworski.

And this decision re-enforced that.

 

[martybegan]

The only way to stop it is either a new Supreme Court decision limiting this new found authority. Or an amendment to do so.

Getting public opinion for an amendment would require serious public interest. That means Biden has to abuse this new power to create the atmosphere where it won’t happen ever again.

There is NO new found authority, it has always existed, it just took Progressive Lawfare to force the court to quantify it.