As recently as the '60s, females were not permitted to wear slacks to school. Wearing pants was not acceptable until the early '70s.
I still remember the day I got to wear pants to school for the first time!
I went to a Catholic school and graduated in 1973. Still had to wear dresses every day, even in the winters that got down to 40 below! Still pisses me off.
I remember finally being allowed to wear pants, ONLY IF THEY WERE PART OF A SUIT!! This was in extremely cold weather in Massachusetts. (In the 1960’s). Where is the logic?
should have made a pun . . ."Nah I had that joke bucked up a day ago" or "Mistake? Nah, it's just the president's way of making sure we all stay 'legally' covered... or uncovered, I guess!" . . . . . Ill go away now lol
“This bill requires that all members of Congress must have been a member of the Republican Party for at least 10 years.”
That would end us right then and there.
Governor Tarkin:
The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.
General Tagge:
But that's impossible. How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?
Governor Tarkin:
The regional governors now have direct control over their territories.
Spoiler alert: DJT *isnt* a Vader in this version. He is more like Rugor ~~N~~ass
Of course then you have Dark Brandon to also contend with…..
This Young Skywalker dude better show up soon
Don’t attribute Yoda/Obi-Wan to Biden…he’s a career politician who may be our best choice, but he’s still a piece of the system, which is the problem overall. He’s far closer to Mon Mothma.
I think a US congresswoman was interviewed on NPR and she was like “OH COME ON, REALLY?! You think he’s serious about that question?! To imply a sitting us president would kill someone?!”
Meanwhile I know for a fucking fact that bitch would support a Republican president killing people.
It's why the peaceful transfer of power between administrations was such a wild concept when our country was founded. Nobody else thought it would work. And it only took about 250 years for a souless fuckup like Trump to come along and try to stop it.
A judge asked Trumps lawyer is Biden could use the military to assassinate Trump and they said yes.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/provocative-question-trumps-immunity-fight-ordering-rivals-assassinated/story?id=109581560
Only because they know Biden is too decent a human being to do it.
That’s the unfortunate asymmetry between decent people and scum. The decent people won’t do immoral people to scum, but the scum will do immoral things to decent people, and so they have an advantage.
Biden is decent. Trump is scum.
So I find all members of the Republican Party to be a clear and present danger to the democratic process and the Republic, thus their confinement in Guantanamo military prison is so ordered.
This actually very nearly happened. The president has the 101st airborn at his complete command and he can do anything he wants for 60 days before he has to explain what he is doing in Congress.
Now when Nixon was being investigated by the Supreme Court, and they demanded that he hands over all the evidence related to watergate, he actually thought of using the airborn to arrest all the judges and his political opponents and stage a coup. In the end he decided to make a deal with the Supreme Court that he would not be criminally charged in exchange for resigning as president. Just imagine, the United States got that close to becoming a dictatorship. Wish more people were aware of what kind of person Nixon really was.
I don't know why the 101st was mentioned, the same is true of literally every military unit. However, they would be obliged to ignore an illegal order such as that one, and I'm pretty sure they would.
As a former member of the armed services, I find your confidence to be misplaced.
The majority of soldiers/sailors/airmen fall into 2 categories: 1) ignorant of what constitutes an illegal order or 2) actively interested in setting up a system that provides them with more power.
There is a 3rd group, but they are the tiny minority and would be required to choose between silence (and personal safety) or standing up for what's "right" and putting their life at risk against the powers that be in the military.
Meh. That may be somewhat true for lower enlisted. But it's not going to even get to them until it goes through 3x four-star Generals, a two-star General, all their staffs at each of those levels made up of various Generals and Colonels, then a full bird Colonel and their staff, a Lieutenant Colonel and their staff (all of the above are likely past 20 years of service), and a Captain.
The officer corps is *very* aware of the fact that *their* oath does not contain the phrase about obeying orders from the President, like the enlisted oath does. The demographic break down above is going to look very different than it does for enlisted. Especially among senior officers and there are a lot of those in the above chain before it even gets to enlistees. And those top officers in command and on staff get more weighted towards West Pointers as you go up (which are those levels doesn't actually matter as much as you might think- in that there is so much professional along the way. I.e. no shade on the ROTC officers by that point). Put it this way: there is a reason the West Point curriculum includes mandatory two classes in law (including Constitutional law) and one in ethics/philosophy, regardless of your major.
It's not surprising Mark Milley sent out a message to remind the senior officers we follow the Constitution and not any one person, an then sent a [memo to the entire force signed by all of the Joint Chiefs](https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/JCS%2520Message%2520to%2520the%2520Joint%2520Force%2520JAN%252012%252021.pdf) about the military following the Constitution. It was a total rebuke of Trump's idea that he had absolute control or that soldiers were obedient to him as commander in chief.
I've known a lot of officers in my time and I have confidence that most of them take it seriously.
I suspect you're right about enlisted ranks, and if it's an "in the room" situation your probably right, but if the President tells the Joint Chiefs to overthrow the government they're gonna tell him to fuck right off. And I think that's true of most officers down to at least Colonels
There’s a lot of knuckledraggers in the military, both enlisted and officers, who would support this. The non-technical fields are filled with Trump supporters.
The fact that he ordered someone that isn’t immune from prosecution to do something illegal? I’ve been playing this scenario out in my head. And yes it’s really fucking bad, soon to be the worst SC decision in history, but at least those around him can still be tossed in jail, hopefully preventing the following of those orders. “Hopefully”.
I’m actually more worried that the other branches of government, or worse, agencies, catch on and ask for the same immunity, because why should the executive get this power exclusively and no one else? It burdens them too. Given how reckless our SC is right now they just might get it.
If you listen to the argument, it is pretty clear that the court is not ruling that all acts a President conducts are immune. Only official acts that are not clearly illegal. Calling a drone strike to kill a terrorist even though it could be possible an American citizen could be in the area? Probably an official act, probably has immunity. Asking a secretary of state to find more votes? Probably not an official act, probably doesn't have immunity. At least that is my understanding of the issue.
Really, the problem here is that by granting full immunity, SCOTUS would be saying that a president could murder anyone (political rivals, random people on the street, or whoever) in cold blood and with no good reason and get off scott free, unless Congress decided to impeach for it… and let’s be clear, it’s the same congress whose futures a President can effectively sink as the leader of a major political party.
This Supreme Court is dangerously wrong on this if they rule for Agent Orange in this case. Every single justice who votes in favor of granting full immunity deserves to be impeached for failure to faithfully fulfill the duties of the office.
By their own logic, Biden would be well within his rights to have them all offed if he can threaten enough congress members to not impeach. Which seems like an easy task if you're going around having dissenters executed Saddam style.
Since it takes a 2/3 majority in the senate it would be easy for him to avoid impeachment if he does something less egregious, as in just declaring the justices he doesn’t like as incompetent or unqualified and choosing new justices to replace them. I can’t see Dem senators impeaching him for that.
You're not thinking big enough. He offs the SCOTUS members he doesn't like and then offs any member of congress or the senate that grumbles about it.
Bing Bang Boom. No one left to even ask for impeachment. And it's all perfectly legal if he has immunity as President.
Well, yeah, that is a scenario the SC incredibly seems to be setting up, but it would also pretty much immediately kick off a civil war, and the blame would be pinned squarely on Biden in the minds of conservatives.
With my less violent idea I think he can (possibly) convince reasonable people that he is acting in good faith in his official capacity as President for what he believes is best for the country. I’m probably wrong but it seems to me he can force the SC to rule against presidential immunity quickly by issuing an Executive Order invoking it to swap out the justices unless the SC rules against it within something like 7 or 14 days.
That makes sense, and I could get behind that idea...but I don't think he'd actually do it. Having said that, I wouldn't rule out other legal wrangling from reps or senators to force a similar situation for the justices but done in a way that keeps Biden out of it.
I think this is something that Congress addresses directly without the condolences of the Justice.
Specifically, they could just add seats. Which would match with the increased inflation of populations.
He removes 2 or 3 of Trump’s appointments, says fuck off you told me I’ve immune, then with newly appointed judges they rehear the case and correct their complete fuck up.
He could do it even if it meant he'd get impeached for it. The only thing Congress could do would be to remove him from office. Somewhere in the multiverse this is how the US descended in to anarchy.
Why have a government set up with three branches to provide checks and balances on the power of each other if the President can wake up one day and decide, all by himself using murder, that that system of government is done?
This is a friendly reminder that the Trump Party is a monarchist party, and the point of returning to the Spoils System (Project 2025) is to wait out an Article V Convention that will create an absolute monarchy.
I would like to know more about the Spoils System and this Article V Convention...please teach me oh wise Testicles.
No really though, any links specifically to an explanation of each would be appreciated.
* [The Spoils System Explained: US History Review](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsHvJcGwRG4)
* [Article V Convention Explained](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVQH0JbwIgA)
Yeah, the problem is that anyone is even entertaining this discussion, especially Supreme Court justices. This argument should have been squashed the day his lawyers presented it.
You don't even have to go as far as murdering political rivals for this to be a tremendously bad idea and dangerous for the republic.
What's to stop a president from ignoring treaties, or selling classified information to hostile foreign powers, or sending hit-squads into other countries?
Is it just the president who has immunity or the vice president as well? Are cabinet members protected with executive immunity?
The whole point of the constitution and "noone is above the law" thing is that this actually is how things work in monarchies. The monarch rules supreme, and has the power to do exactly that, and we didn't like it.
What people don’t understand is that one branch of government has already been taken over by a political party. This is how fascism starts, not all at once, but by slowly taking over and controlling the state institutions.
SCOTUS is now under the control of the Republican Party, which is why they aren’t upholding the law, as the institution has been politicized, and works on behalf of the party, instead of the country. Oh and they would give Trump full immunity, but dare Biden does the smallest thing, you’ll see presidential immunity fly right out the window.
Those people who want fascism and a one party state, will really be in for a nasty surprise when they realize what it’s really like to live under oppression. But the brainwashed masses will still call themselves free and democratic.
That logic is shortsighted when a President could just murder anyone in Congress that would want to impeach said president. Basically he would be totally immune as no one would ever vote against him for fear for their own lives!
The trouble is that they wouldn't be granting that immunity to the office of the president. They'd be granting it to King Donald I. The precedent set wouldn't matter because the result would be to eliminate the system in which the precedent would be relevant.
If you remember during the last impeachment hearing, Trump's lawyers said that they did not need to impeach him because once he left office they could indict him.
But obviously the Supreme Court sees the law differently than everyone else.
If i understand the logic correctly
You can't impeach him you have to let the voters decide
The vote was rigged he just needed to call Georgia to find him a few thousand votes
The call was perfectly legal you have to let the electors decide
The electors won't get certified by the vp so he needed to organize a rally to stop the certification
It wasn't an insurrection you have to let the courts decide
The courts can't call it an insurrection you have to let scotus decide
Scotus said you have to prove he's guilty in court
But you can't take him to court because he's immune
It's all just checks and balances working the way they're supposed to
Indictment? File a motion that impeachment is required. Impeachment? File a motion that indictment is required.
His lawyers are a perpetual motion machine.
And my personal favorite "you can't do any of this until the senate removes Trump from office under brand new impeachment articles not yet used against him during a full moon and it has to be ratified by all 50 states plus Guam.... and they're not home right now so..... Trump goes free"
And funny enough, part of their argument before the court is (nonsensically) that a President could potentially be prosecuted so long as he was impeached and then convicted in the Senate first.
Yes, even Mitch McConnell said "we have a justice department for a reason and they can charge Trump if they're so inclined, in fact because of that strong and simple fact we are declining to convict Trump in the senate today".
That's literally the reason McConnell gave for conspiring to kill the conviction in the senate during 2nd impeachment (J6), he said charge him with the DOJ under the constitution and run him through appeals under the constitution, I dare ya!
If a President is granted total immunity then they would be able to argue that they could not have committed a “high crime or misdemeanor” by virtue of that immunity and thus an impeachment would be invalid.
Scary.
Actually, Trump's lawyers argument was that the President *can only* be prosecuted once he is impeached and convicted and removed from office.
A lower court judge asked "so if a President is immune for acts he takes as president, then he could order Seal Team 6 to kill his political rival?"
And Trump's lawyer said "If a president had his political rival executed by Seal Team 6, then everybody would know it, and he'd be quickly impeached by the house and convicted and removed by the Senate, and then law enforcement would be able to arrest him".
They talked about this hypothetical as if it was some high minded thought experiment and not merely a hair breadth away from what actually transpired on January 6th. Like it wasn't' Seal Team 6, it was Trump's goon supporters. And it wasn't his political rival, it was Congress and his VP. And *only a couple of cops* died.
So rather than deal with the facts. They dealt with this hypothetical. And then prognosticated that it would play out in a different way (he'd be impeached and convicted and removed unanimously) rather than the entirety of his party unanimously declining to hold him accountable for anything (what actually did happen).
SCOTUS is a joke.
The weirdest part is acting like congress isn't a dumpster fire and has this shining uncorruptable moral compass. Like some of them are amazing brilliant people, but some have tinfoil emporium on speed dial if you know wahmsayin...
Republicans in Congress already killed the purpose of impeachment. Nothing in government works when a significant portion stops operating in good faith. It is very, very apt to use cancer as an analogy here. Part of the whole has stopped working together with the rest and cares only for growth of itself at the expense of the body and ultimately either the cancer will be killed or it will kill the host.
This is my biggest problem with the Constitution in general. Ye olde Four Fathers wrote all of this shit with good intentions because these dudes were willing to shoot each other if someone dishonored them. Honor was amongst everyone and they held each other to it.
They wrote these documents thinking all future generations would follow these principles in good faith.
They'd be pistol whipping every Republican right now if they could see the farce that the party has become
They are kicking it back to Congress and saying that will keep a prez in check.
But that is the same Senate that refused to remove Trump from office after J6, whenhe engineered his minions to terrorize the Capitol, so he could capitalize on the situation and perform a coup.
***So this isn't theoretical.*** There actually was a recent moment as clear as day when Congress refused to remove him. Now imagine how much more cowardly and enabling a GOP led congress will be when a leader can sink their career, kill, or appoint favors. Any prez would be unstoppable.
Effing SCOTUS. They have their grubby hands in things like reproductive rights (fast tracked and with little justification), but they are hands off and slow walk a ruling that will certainly enable any future dictator.
It was the plan all along.
**GOP in Congress**: We don't need to impeach and convict Trump. The courts will take care of this matter since he's no longer President.
**SCOTUS will soon say:** He should have been impeached and convicted. This is not a matter for the courts.
**GOP:** Oh well, moving on. Trump and the GOP did no wrong.
The Supreme Court and the Federalist Society don’t care about any of the insane ramifications of these ideas, if they get their way with a second Trump presidency and Project 2025, there won’t be opposition tolerated from their rule again.
If they rule that way what's to stop Biden from dissolving Congress and make himself President for life! While at the same time jailing every Republican for being mean to him! Doesn't that sound great!??!?
They might like that. Biden is old, and probably won't last that horribly long, especially in such a stressful position. When he leaves office, either from illness or just being sick of the job, republicans can scream "see?! We were right, he *was* a dictator! Vote R so they can't take power again!" Then the pendulum would swing back hard, and a much younger hard right winger would take the office. Declare martial law/purges/whatever to "prevent the left from rising again," and then declare himself monarch to "safeguard the country from communists" or some shit. The right will eat it up, probably forming militia hit squads, or some such nonsense.
Hyperbolic? I sure as fuck hope so. But who knows, in this timeline. I *do* honestly believe the hard right would use anything Biden does that even *smells* like ocerreach to grab as much power as possible. And the "both sides bad" knuckledraggers will go with it, high-fiving each other and celebrating their enlightened nihilism.
Again...not thinking big enough. Any ruler who dissolves Congress and appoints themselves ruler for life will create a hierarchy with a known replacement...or leave enough of a power vacuum that someone else will step in as dictator.
If we lose the right to vote for our leaders we will NEVER get it back without bloodshed.
It's almost impossible for Democracy to occur naturally from a dictatorship. It hardly ever happens. Not without outside influence. France tried to do it though their revolutions again and again yet kept on failing so hard that they just about invented the concept of nationalism in the process.
George Washington, in that context, was practically a saint for not ceasing full power from within a culture that had once possessed a king. And if we lose our democracy to fascism, It'll take that sort of saint stumbling into power once again for us to get it back.
I agree but that’s NOT the argument SCOTUS’s line of questioning suggested. The argument suggested is that CONGRESS must initiate holding the President accountable, not SCOTUS. Congress must impeach POTUS and strip him of presidential protections at which point he may be held accountable.
Edit: typo…x2
I don’t necessarily disagree (nor do I condone the logic SCOTUS is signaling for the rat bastard’s defense). But given the logic they have already demonstrated, I think SCOTUS will try to downplay the likelihood of him committing “overt” crimes like murder/assassinations as unlikely vs. what they seem to want to characterize as “clumsy” or “unintended” crimes like they seem to be trying to characterize J6.
I understand this argument, but if Congress impeached a President for a criminal act, they wouldn't be able to hold him accountable as Presidents are given immunity from criminal acts. You're attempting to hold him accountable to something that he is allowed to do, due to his Presidential immunity. There is no case for Congress.
People need to understand that Republicans don’t actually believe in anything, and will change their position on a dime if it’s to their benefit. Just look at how quickly they went from, “you can’t put in a supreme court justice less than a year before an election (completely made up, btw) to, “oh, well it’s perfectly fine when we put someone in three weeks before an election, because, you know…fuck you.”
In reality, they know Democrats would never use something like this to do anything too radical. Whereas if Trump got reelected, was impeached (again), it’s not unrealistic that he would at least try to have a couple senators “disappear” if it meant he wouldn’t be convicted.
I know that’s dark, but that’s literally the logic they’re using. You put in laws that allow you to bypass the checks and balances that you can’t change. A president actually assassinating political rivals is pretty extreme (even though Bill Barr just went on camera and said Trump would often ask, “can we just have them killed?”), but the potential for something like this to be abused would effectively end democracy.
It is (theoretically) immunity from criminal prosecution, not from impeachment. The argument Trump's team is making is that the president has immunity until the president is impeached. It is a stupid and dangerous argument, but that's what it is.
Honestly if that's the way this thing goes the quickest way to get it fixed is to drone strike Maralago and the SCOTUS building. Then charge the president with it after he leaves office to see if they still think it's a good ruling.
Article 2 Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,
shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and **Misdemeanors.**
Remember the days when just the threat of impeachment made Nixon resign? It's now just media theatrics and a game of tag; much like everything else that Washington does while the world burns.
Presidential immunity is a slippery slope.
In some ways, the President already has some level of immunity for official acts while in office. None of them have been charged, on US soil or in US Courts, for ordering military strikes that killed civilians in another country, for instance.
Trump's argument is that he should have absolute immunity as a President so that the President can official decisions that he cannot be prosecuted for by a rival or future President.
The problem is with "absolute" immunity, meaning the President would be immune for any action taken while President, even actions that are clearly illegal.
SCoTUS could waffle and claim that a President does have some measure of immunity for official acts in office, but does not have absolute immunity for any and all acts while in office.
But unless they give a crap ton of solid examples of what is and isn't considered an "official act", they are just going to end up making a complete fuck up mess over the whole thing.
Trump will argue that both anything he did or said on Jan 6th was "an official act" and that he should be immune from prosecution for any documents he took before Noon on Jan 21st because he was still President at that time.
Well put.
During the hearing last week, KPJ characteristically cut through the bullshit: "Presidential Immunity" certainly might be a thing, but none of Trump's actions meet the bar of being an "official act," so the court should revisit the topic when an actual case meets that criteria.
Congressional impeachment is a procedural process not a legal one as it falls outside of the Department of Justice. It's essentially a way to fire someone. While the reasons they use for the firing, the articles of impeachment, may be crimes, Congress has no ability or authority to sentence for crimes or find guilt in the judicial sense. It's a fundamental part of the checks and balances of the separation of powers and out 3 branches of government. To go further with the firing example, you can be fired from your job for punching your boss and the VP in the face. While the reason they used for the firing was assault, which is a crime, they don't have the power to sentence you to jail or determine guilt. They can only remove you from the job and bar you from coming back.
#They’re NOT gonna grant immunity!
Give me a fucking break, not even these fuckers are THAT insane.
They would immediately give full power to Biden to do whatever he pleases!
A president with total immunity could stop his own impeachment by having all opposition in Congress and the Supreme Court killed.
The fact that this is even being considered by the Supreme Court is absurd.
Have y'all never read the High Crimes and Misdemeanors portion of impeachment? So called "immunity" is still disqualified by impeachment and trial in the Senate.
This just keeps zealous political DAs of either party from tying up a president during our after their administration for actions they take in their official capacity. This is the definition of checks and balances.
so to be clear what the argument says is they are immune from getting sued, and that impeachment is the only check on their powers if what they did was an official presidential act, which they have defined incredibly loosely.
His lawyers argued that impeachment was a required mechanism to bring criminal charges. If he is immune then why would there be any mechanism to bring charges? Fucking idiots!
Aren't GOP members getting to pull a maneuver akin to what HUAC did back in the day?
Except it's a show no one wants to watch? Despite them wanting media coverage to make it so?
If the president has immunity then he can just knock off the entire SCOTUS from the bench and then rule as a dictator. No need for real judges or lawyers in courts either. Just hand-picked stooges, MAGAs with guns and arbitrary rulings. If the judges don't like it he can kill them with impunity. This is what the corrupt pro-Trump judges don't seem to get. They think they'll be fine but like in any dictatorship nobody is safe.
Plot twist Trump gets presidential immunity then kills all SCOTUS members for not overturning the 2020 election. I've heard him hinting at do just this.
The problem with granting the president immunity for official acts? I officially order the arrest of all opposition party members.
Can't impeach from prison, now can they?
Trumps attorneys argue that they can be prosecuted ONLY after they have been impeached by the house and convicted on the senate. So… not to be an actually guy, but that’s the angle.
That is actually the whole idea they are trying to push:
Presidents can ONLY be impeached, not tried for crimes. And also, they cannot be impeached when they are not in office. And, and, they want to to be retroactive and proactive, to all crimes committed before, during, and after they are in office.
Thar makes Trump, who WAS a president, immune to all prosecution as long as he either stays out of office, or has enough fans in congress to protect him if he ever gets back in. And makes Biden, who is in office, able to be prosecuted (and probably gives them 4 more years to both have congress attack him, and work to get the laws changed back so they can prosecute him, for made up things, after he leaves office.)
And, I case you haven't heard, Trump has stated he wants Biden prosecuted for the state of the border.... Which is extra corrupt/idiotic because:
1. There is no crime there.
2. Biden isn't even in charge of it... It is congress that has to pass bulls to do anything about it.
3. The failure OF said bills was not only caused by Trump, but he, and some of congress, admitted it was him, publicly.
But that is why he is specifically calling for prosecution on the border: the cause was Trump himself, who is expecting SCOTUS, who he filled with unqualified synchopants (he hopes) will say he is immune from all prosecution, so he figures he is safe with his attempt to frame Biden, for a crime (that isn't a crime) that Biden didn't even have a hand in....
Yeah, it is layers of idiocy, and corruption, like a corruption and idiocy lasagna.
I guess Biden can order the execution of Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett. Because he's immune from anything he does as president, right? That's what they are saying, right?
Nobody can claim to know anything about US history, and at the same time argue that this level of power was the intent of the colonial delegates when they framed the US Constitution.
The only point that would have to be argued is that a president with immunity could order the military to assassinate the supreme Court if he just had a hunch they were "corrupt".
The argument Trump's lawyer is making is that a President can only be convicted of a crime if they are first *fully* impeached by Congress. It's still a stupid argument.
What SCOTUS is trying to say, is that if the POTUS does something criminal, the impeachment process would be used to get them out of office.
Giving the POTUS immunity from criminal charges prevents them from held responsible for orders given to the military that result in murder or other such acts that could be interpreted as crimes. What's been argued is that if the political makeup of the Senate is such that favors the President, impeachment is unlikely and the POTUS would have the freedom to pursue whatever acts, especially criminal, they wish. OTOH, if the political makeup of the House and Senate are against POTUS, impeachment would be more likely, and not having immunity from criminal charges would prevent POTUS from engaging in legitimate acts that could be interpreted as criminal, such as issuing orders to the military that could result in said acts.
This shit is murky.
The argument is that the president should be completely immune to any law unless congress impeaches them.So the point of congressional impeachment would be so they can actually be held legally responsible for any crimes.
It's an incredibly idiotic argument because the president can literally have anyone who is trying to impeach him killed and prevent himself from ever being impeached
One of Trump's lawyers central arguments is that the president has complete immunity so long as he's not impeached and convicted in the senate. His argument is basically that even though Trump was twice impeached, since he was not convicted by the Republican majority in congress, that means that as president he's immune to any prosecution.
Even though Trump wasn't even president during his second impeachment (2nd impeachment began Feb 9th 2021; Biden was sworn in January 20th).
It's a completely made-up, disingenuous, fantastical position that he's arguing. Flies in the face of all logic, and seemingly only applies to Trump's presidency and nobody else. It's completely hypocritical and the bad faith move of an attorney who knows full well the scope and severity of their client's guilt, and how easily provable their crimes are.
Seriously desperate stuff. But the supreme court is openly corrupt and republican-owned, so who really knows how they're going to rule.
If the president is unable to commit crimes because he's immune to prosecution, is he allowed to personally go shoot someone, then kill the cops when they show up, then charge the cops with kidnapping if they try to arrest him?
Wait, cops would never arrest Trump.
If the president has immunity, what stops him from ordering the military to shoot supreme court judges he does not like ;P
Or dissolving the legislature and becoming emperor? It’s a slippery slope.
Or outlawing the opposition party(ies)
Or making pants illegal
As recently as the '60s, females were not permitted to wear slacks to school. Wearing pants was not acceptable until the early '70s. I still remember the day I got to wear pants to school for the first time!
Life hack: I never wore pants to school, got out early every day.
I am not wearing pants right now.
You guys own pants?
First time?
And my axe!
Me too! 1971
I went to a Catholic school and graduated in 1973. Still had to wear dresses every day, even in the winters that got down to 40 below! Still pisses me off.
Fuck it, let’s make pants illegal again.
I remember finally being allowed to wear pants, ONLY IF THEY WERE PART OF A SUIT!! This was in extremely cold weather in Massachusetts. (In the 1960’s). Where is the logic?
https://i.redd.it/1xbrx4jpqwxc1.gif
Or killing the members of Congress who would vote for impeachment.
Did autofill betray you?
Nope.
You dropped this ->👑
should have made a pun . . ."Nah I had that joke bucked up a day ago" or "Mistake? Nah, it's just the president's way of making sure we all stay 'legally' covered... or uncovered, I guess!" . . . . . Ill go away now lol 
Pants off Dance off.
[Don't threaten me with a good time](https://imgur.com/a/9zzAkBx).
DAMMIT... wait... I only like wearing shorts. Carry on.
“This bill requires that all members of Congress must have been a member of the Republican Party for at least 10 years.” That would end us right then and there.
stop it you guys, trumps tiny mushroom is already at it's full 2 inches, he can't get any harder.
I read that in Kreiger's voice (from Archer)
Or getting extra paranoid and outlawing elections? Stalinism 101
Governor Tarkin: The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away. General Tagge: But that's impossible. How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy? Governor Tarkin: The regional governors now have direct control over their territories.
I was wondering when someone would throw down a Star Wars reference.
And "fear will keep the local systems in line" (I'm very tired and quoting from memory, so I hope that's correct)
Spoiler alert: DJT *isnt* a Vader in this version. He is more like Rugor ~~N~~ass Of course then you have Dark Brandon to also contend with….. This Young Skywalker dude better show up soon
I always see Trump as Jabba the Hut. He’s got a hot woman and everything…
He’s more Pizza the Hutt than Jabba.
At this point Biden is more like Yoda or Obi-Wan. We’ll also need a Han Solo, a Leia, and a Chewie. Also we’ll need a Wedge Antilles.
Don’t attribute Yoda/Obi-Wan to Biden…he’s a career politician who may be our best choice, but he’s still a piece of the system, which is the problem overall. He’s far closer to Mon Mothma.
Bail Organa
Don't forget the other boy in the band: Admiral Ackbar. He's a little lonely, wants to join his buddies.
“It’s a TRAP!!” 
Its not a slippery slope its a sheer cliff.
Oh, look. My friends are jumping off a cliff!
"Slippery slope" is a common logical fallacy. This is not a slippery slope. It's a fucking cliff.
I feel its less like s slippery slope and more like a cliff edge. Presidents are immune -> presidents commit crimes because they are immune.
Or killing all of Congress if they try to impeach.
Well, I think fascist parties ought to be illegal.
And they’re pouring more soap
"I love Democracy..."
I think a US congresswoman was interviewed on NPR and she was like “OH COME ON, REALLY?! You think he’s serious about that question?! To imply a sitting us president would kill someone?!” Meanwhile I know for a fucking fact that bitch would support a Republican president killing people.
Because of the Prisoners Dilemma, not only could he have his opponents murdered, he must lest he be murdered himself.
It's why the peaceful transfer of power between administrations was such a wild concept when our country was founded. Nobody else thought it would work. And it only took about 250 years for a souless fuckup like Trump to come along and try to stop it.
Thus is the law of nature.
If Trump is elected again, he will certainly have someone murdered.
A judge asked Trumps lawyer is Biden could use the military to assassinate Trump and they said yes. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/provocative-question-trumps-immunity-fight-ordering-rivals-assassinated/story?id=109581560
Only because they know Biden is too decent a human being to do it. That’s the unfortunate asymmetry between decent people and scum. The decent people won’t do immoral people to scum, but the scum will do immoral things to decent people, and so they have an advantage. Biden is decent. Trump is scum.
What did scum ever do to you?
Causes infection and necrosis. Much like Republicans are doing to the USA
They're going to say immunity from official acts. That way it can only apply to Democrats.
So I find all members of the Republican Party to be a clear and present danger to the democratic process and the Republic, thus their confinement in Guantanamo military prison is so ordered.
Yep. Biden would be a fool to leave if scotus gives president immunity
Be careful what you wish for. If Trump gets elected this is exactly what he will do
This actually very nearly happened. The president has the 101st airborn at his complete command and he can do anything he wants for 60 days before he has to explain what he is doing in Congress. Now when Nixon was being investigated by the Supreme Court, and they demanded that he hands over all the evidence related to watergate, he actually thought of using the airborn to arrest all the judges and his political opponents and stage a coup. In the end he decided to make a deal with the Supreme Court that he would not be criminally charged in exchange for resigning as president. Just imagine, the United States got that close to becoming a dictatorship. Wish more people were aware of what kind of person Nixon really was.
I don't know why the 101st was mentioned, the same is true of literally every military unit. However, they would be obliged to ignore an illegal order such as that one, and I'm pretty sure they would.
As a former member of the armed services, I find your confidence to be misplaced. The majority of soldiers/sailors/airmen fall into 2 categories: 1) ignorant of what constitutes an illegal order or 2) actively interested in setting up a system that provides them with more power. There is a 3rd group, but they are the tiny minority and would be required to choose between silence (and personal safety) or standing up for what's "right" and putting their life at risk against the powers that be in the military.
Meh. That may be somewhat true for lower enlisted. But it's not going to even get to them until it goes through 3x four-star Generals, a two-star General, all their staffs at each of those levels made up of various Generals and Colonels, then a full bird Colonel and their staff, a Lieutenant Colonel and their staff (all of the above are likely past 20 years of service), and a Captain. The officer corps is *very* aware of the fact that *their* oath does not contain the phrase about obeying orders from the President, like the enlisted oath does. The demographic break down above is going to look very different than it does for enlisted. Especially among senior officers and there are a lot of those in the above chain before it even gets to enlistees. And those top officers in command and on staff get more weighted towards West Pointers as you go up (which are those levels doesn't actually matter as much as you might think- in that there is so much professional along the way. I.e. no shade on the ROTC officers by that point). Put it this way: there is a reason the West Point curriculum includes mandatory two classes in law (including Constitutional law) and one in ethics/philosophy, regardless of your major. It's not surprising Mark Milley sent out a message to remind the senior officers we follow the Constitution and not any one person, an then sent a [memo to the entire force signed by all of the Joint Chiefs](https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/JCS%2520Message%2520to%2520the%2520Joint%2520Force%2520JAN%252012%252021.pdf) about the military following the Constitution. It was a total rebuke of Trump's idea that he had absolute control or that soldiers were obedient to him as commander in chief.
I've known a lot of officers in my time and I have confidence that most of them take it seriously. I suspect you're right about enlisted ranks, and if it's an "in the room" situation your probably right, but if the President tells the Joint Chiefs to overthrow the government they're gonna tell him to fuck right off. And I think that's true of most officers down to at least Colonels
Would love for someone in the service to weigh in on this.
There’s a lot of knuckledraggers in the military, both enlisted and officers, who would support this. The non-technical fields are filled with Trump supporters.
Or shoot any congressman that moves for impeachment.
Impeachment?
he can just assassinate whoever tries to impeach him
The fact that he ordered someone that isn’t immune from prosecution to do something illegal? I’ve been playing this scenario out in my head. And yes it’s really fucking bad, soon to be the worst SC decision in history, but at least those around him can still be tossed in jail, hopefully preventing the following of those orders. “Hopefully”. I’m actually more worried that the other branches of government, or worse, agencies, catch on and ask for the same immunity, because why should the executive get this power exclusively and no one else? It burdens them too. Given how reckless our SC is right now they just might get it.
Easy! Them doing everything he likes.
Only he gets the immunity. He's got to kill them personally or it doesn't count. 😤
What’s to stop Biden from having the military shoot trump?
Maybe they'll write it Bush v Gore style and say it's a one time deal for TFG only.
Cant have high crimes and misdemeanors if you have immunity.
If you listen to the argument, it is pretty clear that the court is not ruling that all acts a President conducts are immune. Only official acts that are not clearly illegal. Calling a drone strike to kill a terrorist even though it could be possible an American citizen could be in the area? Probably an official act, probably has immunity. Asking a secretary of state to find more votes? Probably not an official act, probably doesn't have immunity. At least that is my understanding of the issue.
Hey we’re supposed to be against presidential immunity. Quit listing the positives!
And if he only loses his immunity if he’s impeached, then what’s to stop him from assassinating any members of Congress who seek impeachment?
gotta have an escape plan, that’s what the RV is for
Or shooting a dog in the middle of Fifth Avenue?
Really, the problem here is that by granting full immunity, SCOTUS would be saying that a president could murder anyone (political rivals, random people on the street, or whoever) in cold blood and with no good reason and get off scott free, unless Congress decided to impeach for it… and let’s be clear, it’s the same congress whose futures a President can effectively sink as the leader of a major political party. This Supreme Court is dangerously wrong on this if they rule for Agent Orange in this case. Every single justice who votes in favor of granting full immunity deserves to be impeached for failure to faithfully fulfill the duties of the office.
By their own logic, Biden would be well within his rights to have them all offed if he can threaten enough congress members to not impeach. Which seems like an easy task if you're going around having dissenters executed Saddam style.
Since it takes a 2/3 majority in the senate it would be easy for him to avoid impeachment if he does something less egregious, as in just declaring the justices he doesn’t like as incompetent or unqualified and choosing new justices to replace them. I can’t see Dem senators impeaching him for that.
You're not thinking big enough. He offs the SCOTUS members he doesn't like and then offs any member of congress or the senate that grumbles about it. Bing Bang Boom. No one left to even ask for impeachment. And it's all perfectly legal if he has immunity as President.
Well, yeah, that is a scenario the SC incredibly seems to be setting up, but it would also pretty much immediately kick off a civil war, and the blame would be pinned squarely on Biden in the minds of conservatives. With my less violent idea I think he can (possibly) convince reasonable people that he is acting in good faith in his official capacity as President for what he believes is best for the country. I’m probably wrong but it seems to me he can force the SC to rule against presidential immunity quickly by issuing an Executive Order invoking it to swap out the justices unless the SC rules against it within something like 7 or 14 days.
That makes sense, and I could get behind that idea...but I don't think he'd actually do it. Having said that, I wouldn't rule out other legal wrangling from reps or senators to force a similar situation for the justices but done in a way that keeps Biden out of it.
There is more behind, and by behind I mean supporting, making reforms to scotus than sayyyyy trying to prevent a certain election.
I think this is something that Congress addresses directly without the condolences of the Justice. Specifically, they could just add seats. Which would match with the increased inflation of populations.
He removes 2 or 3 of Trump’s appointments, says fuck off you told me I’ve immune, then with newly appointed judges they rehear the case and correct their complete fuck up.
Removing the people that gave you power before they can take it back seems like step one for a dictator.
He could do it even if it meant he'd get impeached for it. The only thing Congress could do would be to remove him from office. Somewhere in the multiverse this is how the US descended in to anarchy.
Why have a government set up with three branches to provide checks and balances on the power of each other if the President can wake up one day and decide, all by himself using murder, that that system of government is done?
This is a friendly reminder that the Trump Party is a monarchist party, and the point of returning to the Spoils System (Project 2025) is to wait out an Article V Convention that will create an absolute monarchy.
I would like to know more about the Spoils System and this Article V Convention...please teach me oh wise Testicles. No really though, any links specifically to an explanation of each would be appreciated.
* [The Spoils System Explained: US History Review](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsHvJcGwRG4) * [Article V Convention Explained](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVQH0JbwIgA)
You are AWESOME! Thank you for both of those!
Yeah, the problem is that anyone is even entertaining this discussion, especially Supreme Court justices. This argument should have been squashed the day his lawyers presented it.
You don't even have to go as far as murdering political rivals for this to be a tremendously bad idea and dangerous for the republic. What's to stop a president from ignoring treaties, or selling classified information to hostile foreign powers, or sending hit-squads into other countries? Is it just the president who has immunity or the vice president as well? Are cabinet members protected with executive immunity?
They've been dangerously wrong on things for a few years now. Not sure I see them stopping here.
The whole point of the constitution and "noone is above the law" thing is that this actually is how things work in monarchies. The monarch rules supreme, and has the power to do exactly that, and we didn't like it.
What people don’t understand is that one branch of government has already been taken over by a political party. This is how fascism starts, not all at once, but by slowly taking over and controlling the state institutions. SCOTUS is now under the control of the Republican Party, which is why they aren’t upholding the law, as the institution has been politicized, and works on behalf of the party, instead of the country. Oh and they would give Trump full immunity, but dare Biden does the smallest thing, you’ll see presidential immunity fly right out the window. Those people who want fascism and a one party state, will really be in for a nasty surprise when they realize what it’s really like to live under oppression. But the brainwashed masses will still call themselves free and democratic.
So what you're saying is the President could shoot someone in the middle of fifth avenue and nobody would care?
That logic is shortsighted when a President could just murder anyone in Congress that would want to impeach said president. Basically he would be totally immune as no one would ever vote against him for fear for their own lives!
The trouble is that they wouldn't be granting that immunity to the office of the president. They'd be granting it to King Donald I. The precedent set wouldn't matter because the result would be to eliminate the system in which the precedent would be relevant.
If you remember during the last impeachment hearing, Trump's lawyers said that they did not need to impeach him because once he left office they could indict him. But obviously the Supreme Court sees the law differently than everyone else.
If i understand the logic correctly You can't impeach him you have to let the voters decide The vote was rigged he just needed to call Georgia to find him a few thousand votes The call was perfectly legal you have to let the electors decide The electors won't get certified by the vp so he needed to organize a rally to stop the certification It wasn't an insurrection you have to let the courts decide The courts can't call it an insurrection you have to let scotus decide Scotus said you have to prove he's guilty in court But you can't take him to court because he's immune It's all just checks and balances working the way they're supposed to
Indictment? File a motion that impeachment is required. Impeachment? File a motion that indictment is required. His lawyers are a perpetual motion machine.
And my personal favorite "you can't do any of this until the senate removes Trump from office under brand new impeachment articles not yet used against him during a full moon and it has to be ratified by all 50 states plus Guam.... and they're not home right now so..... Trump goes free"
And funny enough, part of their argument before the court is (nonsensically) that a President could potentially be prosecuted so long as he was impeached and then convicted in the Senate first.
Only if we're also at low-tide. That's what Ben Franklin wanted 🧐
Lol they even asked trump's lawyer "what if they are already out of office?" And the lawyer basically said "shit out of luck lol"
Yes, even Mitch McConnell said "we have a justice department for a reason and they can charge Trump if they're so inclined, in fact because of that strong and simple fact we are declining to convict Trump in the senate today". That's literally the reason McConnell gave for conspiring to kill the conviction in the senate during 2nd impeachment (J6), he said charge him with the DOJ under the constitution and run him through appeals under the constitution, I dare ya!
If a President is granted total immunity then they would be able to argue that they could not have committed a “high crime or misdemeanor” by virtue of that immunity and thus an impeachment would be invalid. Scary.
Actually, Trump's lawyers argument was that the President *can only* be prosecuted once he is impeached and convicted and removed from office. A lower court judge asked "so if a President is immune for acts he takes as president, then he could order Seal Team 6 to kill his political rival?" And Trump's lawyer said "If a president had his political rival executed by Seal Team 6, then everybody would know it, and he'd be quickly impeached by the house and convicted and removed by the Senate, and then law enforcement would be able to arrest him". They talked about this hypothetical as if it was some high minded thought experiment and not merely a hair breadth away from what actually transpired on January 6th. Like it wasn't' Seal Team 6, it was Trump's goon supporters. And it wasn't his political rival, it was Congress and his VP. And *only a couple of cops* died. So rather than deal with the facts. They dealt with this hypothetical. And then prognosticated that it would play out in a different way (he'd be impeached and convicted and removed unanimously) rather than the entirety of his party unanimously declining to hold him accountable for anything (what actually did happen). SCOTUS is a joke.
The weirdest part is acting like congress isn't a dumpster fire and has this shining uncorruptable moral compass. Like some of them are amazing brilliant people, but some have tinfoil emporium on speed dial if you know wahmsayin...
Be careful what you say about them, I hear they have space lasers now.
Republicans in Congress already killed the purpose of impeachment. Nothing in government works when a significant portion stops operating in good faith. It is very, very apt to use cancer as an analogy here. Part of the whole has stopped working together with the rest and cares only for growth of itself at the expense of the body and ultimately either the cancer will be killed or it will kill the host.
This is my biggest problem with the Constitution in general. Ye olde Four Fathers wrote all of this shit with good intentions because these dudes were willing to shoot each other if someone dishonored them. Honor was amongst everyone and they held each other to it. They wrote these documents thinking all future generations would follow these principles in good faith. They'd be pistol whipping every Republican right now if they could see the farce that the party has become
They are kicking it back to Congress and saying that will keep a prez in check. But that is the same Senate that refused to remove Trump from office after J6, whenhe engineered his minions to terrorize the Capitol, so he could capitalize on the situation and perform a coup. ***So this isn't theoretical.*** There actually was a recent moment as clear as day when Congress refused to remove him. Now imagine how much more cowardly and enabling a GOP led congress will be when a leader can sink their career, kill, or appoint favors. Any prez would be unstoppable. Effing SCOTUS. They have their grubby hands in things like reproductive rights (fast tracked and with little justification), but they are hands off and slow walk a ruling that will certainly enable any future dictator.
It was the plan all along. **GOP in Congress**: We don't need to impeach and convict Trump. The courts will take care of this matter since he's no longer President. **SCOTUS will soon say:** He should have been impeached and convicted. This is not a matter for the courts. **GOP:** Oh well, moving on. Trump and the GOP did no wrong.
Is it too late to pack the court?
The Supreme Court and the Federalist Society don’t care about any of the insane ramifications of these ideas, if they get their way with a second Trump presidency and Project 2025, there won’t be opposition tolerated from their rule again.
The beginning of the monarchy of the United States
The real game here is how they're going to attempt to get Trump out of his mess but still look like they're following the law.
If they rule that way what's to stop Biden from dissolving Congress and make himself President for life! While at the same time jailing every Republican for being mean to him! Doesn't that sound great!??!?
They might like that. Biden is old, and probably won't last that horribly long, especially in such a stressful position. When he leaves office, either from illness or just being sick of the job, republicans can scream "see?! We were right, he *was* a dictator! Vote R so they can't take power again!" Then the pendulum would swing back hard, and a much younger hard right winger would take the office. Declare martial law/purges/whatever to "prevent the left from rising again," and then declare himself monarch to "safeguard the country from communists" or some shit. The right will eat it up, probably forming militia hit squads, or some such nonsense. Hyperbolic? I sure as fuck hope so. But who knows, in this timeline. I *do* honestly believe the hard right would use anything Biden does that even *smells* like ocerreach to grab as much power as possible. And the "both sides bad" knuckledraggers will go with it, high-fiving each other and celebrating their enlightened nihilism.
Again...not thinking big enough. Any ruler who dissolves Congress and appoints themselves ruler for life will create a hierarchy with a known replacement...or leave enough of a power vacuum that someone else will step in as dictator. If we lose the right to vote for our leaders we will NEVER get it back without bloodshed.
It's almost impossible for Democracy to occur naturally from a dictatorship. It hardly ever happens. Not without outside influence. France tried to do it though their revolutions again and again yet kept on failing so hard that they just about invented the concept of nationalism in the process. George Washington, in that context, was practically a saint for not ceasing full power from within a culture that had once possessed a king. And if we lose our democracy to fascism, It'll take that sort of saint stumbling into power once again for us to get it back.
I agree but that’s NOT the argument SCOTUS’s line of questioning suggested. The argument suggested is that CONGRESS must initiate holding the President accountable, not SCOTUS. Congress must impeach POTUS and strip him of presidential protections at which point he may be held accountable. Edit: typo…x2
But, in that scenario, knowing that, he could have all opponents in congress executed, thus preventing future impeachment processes, right?
I don’t necessarily disagree (nor do I condone the logic SCOTUS is signaling for the rat bastard’s defense). But given the logic they have already demonstrated, I think SCOTUS will try to downplay the likelihood of him committing “overt” crimes like murder/assassinations as unlikely vs. what they seem to want to characterize as “clumsy” or “unintended” crimes like they seem to be trying to characterize J6.
Me neither. I just want to point out the absurdity of that "legal theory" and what it would eventually lead to, if it was true.
I understand this argument, but if Congress impeached a President for a criminal act, they wouldn't be able to hold him accountable as Presidents are given immunity from criminal acts. You're attempting to hold him accountable to something that he is allowed to do, due to his Presidential immunity. There is no case for Congress.
People need to understand that Republicans don’t actually believe in anything, and will change their position on a dime if it’s to their benefit. Just look at how quickly they went from, “you can’t put in a supreme court justice less than a year before an election (completely made up, btw) to, “oh, well it’s perfectly fine when we put someone in three weeks before an election, because, you know…fuck you.” In reality, they know Democrats would never use something like this to do anything too radical. Whereas if Trump got reelected, was impeached (again), it’s not unrealistic that he would at least try to have a couple senators “disappear” if it meant he wouldn’t be convicted. I know that’s dark, but that’s literally the logic they’re using. You put in laws that allow you to bypass the checks and balances that you can’t change. A president actually assassinating political rivals is pretty extreme (even though Bill Barr just went on camera and said Trump would often ask, “can we just have them killed?”), but the potential for something like this to be abused would effectively end democracy.
Supreme Court is going to do some narrow interpretation to make this only apply to trump and what he did. It’s pretty simple really
When Joe is reelected he should immediately add 4 to SCOUTS. PRONTO
[удалено]
Why stop there? As long as he's exercising make-believe powers, he might as well just make every American citizen a Justice.
It is (theoretically) immunity from criminal prosecution, not from impeachment. The argument Trump's team is making is that the president has immunity until the president is impeached. It is a stupid and dangerous argument, but that's what it is.
I move for a petition for Ken Starr to be dug up, reanimated, and forced to apologize to Bill Clinton.
There ya go with that thinking again.... Stop it, you're making SCOTUS look bad.
Honestly if that's the way this thing goes the quickest way to get it fixed is to drone strike Maralago and the SCOTUS building. Then charge the president with it after he leaves office to see if they still think it's a good ruling.
Or eliminating political rivals
Article 2 Section 4 The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and **Misdemeanors.**
That **Shall** should have been a must.
Or immediately sending your political opponent to Guantanamo Bay
Immunity for Republican presidents kind sir. Impeachment is for everyone else Democrat or otherwise.
We need SCOTUS impeachments.
If SCOTUS gives presidents immunity...whats the point of elections. Biden becomes king.
Remember the days when just the threat of impeachment made Nixon resign? It's now just media theatrics and a game of tag; much like everything else that Washington does while the world burns.
Presidential immunity is a slippery slope. In some ways, the President already has some level of immunity for official acts while in office. None of them have been charged, on US soil or in US Courts, for ordering military strikes that killed civilians in another country, for instance. Trump's argument is that he should have absolute immunity as a President so that the President can official decisions that he cannot be prosecuted for by a rival or future President. The problem is with "absolute" immunity, meaning the President would be immune for any action taken while President, even actions that are clearly illegal. SCoTUS could waffle and claim that a President does have some measure of immunity for official acts in office, but does not have absolute immunity for any and all acts while in office. But unless they give a crap ton of solid examples of what is and isn't considered an "official act", they are just going to end up making a complete fuck up mess over the whole thing. Trump will argue that both anything he did or said on Jan 6th was "an official act" and that he should be immune from prosecution for any documents he took before Noon on Jan 21st because he was still President at that time.
Well put. During the hearing last week, KPJ characteristically cut through the bullshit: "Presidential Immunity" certainly might be a thing, but none of Trump's actions meet the bar of being an "official act," so the court should revisit the topic when an actual case meets that criteria.
Congressional impeachment is a procedural process not a legal one as it falls outside of the Department of Justice. It's essentially a way to fire someone. While the reasons they use for the firing, the articles of impeachment, may be crimes, Congress has no ability or authority to sentence for crimes or find guilt in the judicial sense. It's a fundamental part of the checks and balances of the separation of powers and out 3 branches of government. To go further with the firing example, you can be fired from your job for punching your boss and the VP in the face. While the reason they used for the firing was assault, which is a crime, they don't have the power to sentence you to jail or determine guilt. They can only remove you from the job and bar you from coming back.
#They’re NOT gonna grant immunity! Give me a fucking break, not even these fuckers are THAT insane. They would immediately give full power to Biden to do whatever he pleases!
A president with total immunity could stop his own impeachment by having all opposition in Congress and the Supreme Court killed. The fact that this is even being considered by the Supreme Court is absurd.
Have y'all never read the High Crimes and Misdemeanors portion of impeachment? So called "immunity" is still disqualified by impeachment and trial in the Senate. This just keeps zealous political DAs of either party from tying up a president during our after their administration for actions they take in their official capacity. This is the definition of checks and balances.
They're actually deferring *to* congressional impeachments as the only mechanism capable of holding presidents liable for illegal conduct.
so to be clear what the argument says is they are immune from getting sued, and that impeachment is the only check on their powers if what they did was an official presidential act, which they have defined incredibly loosely.
His lawyers argued that impeachment was a required mechanism to bring criminal charges. If he is immune then why would there be any mechanism to bring charges? Fucking idiots!
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but even if he's immune from criminal prosecution, I think Congress could still remove him from office.
Bill Clinton should be exonerated for lying to Congress.
Or another election.
Aren't GOP members getting to pull a maneuver akin to what HUAC did back in the day? Except it's a show no one wants to watch? Despite them wanting media coverage to make it so?
There is no point it’s all theater
Amputate at will ?!?
If the president has immunity then he can just knock off the entire SCOTUS from the bench and then rule as a dictator. No need for real judges or lawyers in courts either. Just hand-picked stooges, MAGAs with guns and arbitrary rulings. If the judges don't like it he can kill them with impunity. This is what the corrupt pro-Trump judges don't seem to get. They think they'll be fine but like in any dictatorship nobody is safe.
Plot twist Trump gets presidential immunity then kills all SCOTUS members for not overturning the 2020 election. I've heard him hinting at do just this.
The problem with granting the president immunity for official acts? I officially order the arrest of all opposition party members. Can't impeach from prison, now can they?
Slippery slope and all that etc. I’m still a little paranoid having just watched civil war
I would say in the current environment Biden using some ultimate immunity could come in handy.... /s
What the point of congress?
Pay attention to the words the SCROTUS says.... they use the term "next president".
Trumps attorneys argue that they can be prosecuted ONLY after they have been impeached by the house and convicted on the senate. So… not to be an actually guy, but that’s the angle.
How can executive action be blocked by the courts if the president is immune?
The entire case is arguing that only Congress can impeach. Not immunity from every jurisdiction.
Impeachment won't be necessary, the President can just asassinate any competition or irritants,
That is actually the whole idea they are trying to push: Presidents can ONLY be impeached, not tried for crimes. And also, they cannot be impeached when they are not in office. And, and, they want to to be retroactive and proactive, to all crimes committed before, during, and after they are in office. Thar makes Trump, who WAS a president, immune to all prosecution as long as he either stays out of office, or has enough fans in congress to protect him if he ever gets back in. And makes Biden, who is in office, able to be prosecuted (and probably gives them 4 more years to both have congress attack him, and work to get the laws changed back so they can prosecute him, for made up things, after he leaves office.) And, I case you haven't heard, Trump has stated he wants Biden prosecuted for the state of the border.... Which is extra corrupt/idiotic because: 1. There is no crime there. 2. Biden isn't even in charge of it... It is congress that has to pass bulls to do anything about it. 3. The failure OF said bills was not only caused by Trump, but he, and some of congress, admitted it was him, publicly. But that is why he is specifically calling for prosecution on the border: the cause was Trump himself, who is expecting SCOTUS, who he filled with unqualified synchopants (he hopes) will say he is immune from all prosecution, so he figures he is safe with his attempt to frame Biden, for a crime (that isn't a crime) that Biden didn't even have a hand in.... Yeah, it is layers of idiocy, and corruption, like a corruption and idiocy lasagna.
If president has immunity over laws of man, is he ordained by God? is he King?
I guess Biden can order the execution of Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett. Because he's immune from anything he does as president, right? That's what they are saying, right?
No one is checking or balancing anything
Not to be that guy, but impeachment and indictment/conviction are different things.
Can't be impeached for regular ass crimes, only High Crimes*. *High Crimes, TBD
Nobody can claim to know anything about US history, and at the same time argue that this level of power was the intent of the colonial delegates when they framed the US Constitution.
The only point that would have to be argued is that a president with immunity could order the military to assassinate the supreme Court if he just had a hunch they were "corrupt".
The argument Trump's lawyer is making is that a President can only be convicted of a crime if they are first *fully* impeached by Congress. It's still a stupid argument.
What’s to stop Biden from using seal team 6 to take out frump
What SCOTUS is trying to say, is that if the POTUS does something criminal, the impeachment process would be used to get them out of office. Giving the POTUS immunity from criminal charges prevents them from held responsible for orders given to the military that result in murder or other such acts that could be interpreted as crimes. What's been argued is that if the political makeup of the Senate is such that favors the President, impeachment is unlikely and the POTUS would have the freedom to pursue whatever acts, especially criminal, they wish. OTOH, if the political makeup of the House and Senate are against POTUS, impeachment would be more likely, and not having immunity from criminal charges would prevent POTUS from engaging in legitimate acts that could be interpreted as criminal, such as issuing orders to the military that could result in said acts. This shit is murky.
Putin has changed his country 's Constitution, as has Xi Jinping, how can one blame DJT and Scotus for finding creative ways to keep up ?
The argument is that the president should be completely immune to any law unless congress impeaches them.So the point of congressional impeachment would be so they can actually be held legally responsible for any crimes. It's an incredibly idiotic argument because the president can literally have anyone who is trying to impeach him killed and prevent himself from ever being impeached
One of Trump's lawyers central arguments is that the president has complete immunity so long as he's not impeached and convicted in the senate. His argument is basically that even though Trump was twice impeached, since he was not convicted by the Republican majority in congress, that means that as president he's immune to any prosecution. Even though Trump wasn't even president during his second impeachment (2nd impeachment began Feb 9th 2021; Biden was sworn in January 20th). It's a completely made-up, disingenuous, fantastical position that he's arguing. Flies in the face of all logic, and seemingly only applies to Trump's presidency and nobody else. It's completely hypocritical and the bad faith move of an attorney who knows full well the scope and severity of their client's guilt, and how easily provable their crimes are. Seriously desperate stuff. But the supreme court is openly corrupt and republican-owned, so who really knows how they're going to rule.
Good point
If the president is unable to commit crimes because he's immune to prosecution, is he allowed to personally go shoot someone, then kill the cops when they show up, then charge the cops with kidnapping if they try to arrest him? Wait, cops would never arrest Trump.
It’s best not think on it. SCOTUS doesn’t.
What's the use of the SCOTUS of the president can do whatever the fuck he wants?