herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 981
|
Post by herzlos on Jul 1, 2024 19:14:30 GMT -5
One thing I haven't seen anything about is the successors. I think there's a pretty low chance that either Trump or Biden would still be in office in another 2029, given neither is fit for office right now, so you'd think the big concern would be "who's actually going to be the President during the next term"? Without looking, I couldn't tell you who the VP candidates are at all. Is that a big concern? In the case of Harris, it's competent but bland. In the case of Trump, is he even running the country in the first place? His first term was all about self aggrandizing, while the more competent staff did damage control. But now its incompetent sychophants all the way down, because the remaining competent people all threw their hands up and left during his first term. Trump and his VP are nothing more than rubber stamps for the people pushing project 2025.
How long do you really think Biden (81, resonable health, questionable faculties) or Trump (76, terrible health, no faculties) are likely to still be able to pretend to be President?
I remember there was a lot of discussion around Pence before, since people were worried that if Pence took over, he'd actually be competent and nasty.
|
|
|
Post by A Town Called Malus on Jul 1, 2024 19:25:34 GMT -5
Well, the supreme court just opened up the option for Biden to have Trump assassinated with zero legal repercussions. In fact, he could nuke Congress if he wished and according to the precedent set today, there was no legal route to hold him to account.
The president is officially above criminal law as long as whatever criminal acts they are doing are official acts.
Guess those founding fathers were actually pretty fond of kings.
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 981
|
Post by herzlos on Jul 1, 2024 20:17:02 GMT -5
And campaigning is potentially an official act, so assassinating anyone else standing for election would arguably be legal. All Trump would then need to worry about is getting rid of the 2 term limit, but I'm assuming he'd just support one of his kids running instead.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jul 1, 2024 20:18:37 GMT -5
Well, the supreme court just opened up the option for Biden to have Trump assassinated with zero legal repercussions. In fact, he could nuke Congress if he wished and according to the precedent set today, there was no legal route to hold him to account. Too bad he won't do it because he's a centrist democrat and the democrats still haven't figured out that the other side isn't playing by the rules. Trump (76, terrible health, no faculties) are likely to still be able to pretend to be President? Any age. In fact, Trump's cult would vote for his rotting corpse just to own the liberals. They'd probably love it even more than a living Trump because liberals would hate it so much.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jul 2, 2024 0:04:41 GMT -5
Is that a big concern? In the case of Harris, it's competent but bland. In the case of Trump, is he even running the country in the first place? His first term was all about self aggrandizing, while the more competent staff did damage control. But now its incompetent sychophants all the way down, because the remaining competent people all threw their hands up and left during his first term. Trump and his VP are nothing more than rubber stamps for the people pushing project 2025.
How long do you really think Biden (81, resonable health, questionable faculties) or Trump (76, terrible health, no faculties) are likely to still be able to pretend to be President?
I remember there was a lot of discussion around Pence before, since people were worried that if Pence took over, he'd actually be competent and nasty.
I'm not saying that I 100% expect them to live through a second term, I'm asking if them dying in office is a big concern. Harris wil just be a shadow of Biden, a moderate and not so exciting democrat, inheriting a competent cabinet. Trump meanwhile will remain the same child he was during his first term. The people pulling the strings have just gotten a lot more organized about it. There no longer is the luxury to assume that Trump's incompetent actions will sufficiently obstruct the damage he can cause. Trump and his VP will just be vehicles to enact plans that will only fully unfold after him and his VP leave office. This election isn't really about which guy might die in office, it is about the pieces moving into position for 2028/9.
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Jul 2, 2024 1:48:36 GMT -5
Well, the supreme court just opened up the option for Biden to have Trump assassinated with zero legal repercussions. In fact, he could nuke Congress if he wished and according to the precedent set today, there was no legal route to hold him to account. The president is officially above criminal law as long as whatever criminal acts they are doing are official acts. Guess those founding fathers were actually pretty fond of kings. He won't, but Biden could really call the conservative SC's bluff and have them all arrested or assassinate one of them. I wonder how quickly the precedent might flip?
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jul 2, 2024 5:20:46 GMT -5
True. Curiosity got the better of me because I'm always desperate to figure out what (if) these folk are actually thinking.
I just want to know who he is so I can dump his main account in the trash where it belongs.
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Jul 3, 2024 8:54:12 GMT -5
You guys do know that this recent SCOTUS immunity ruling also helps the current President... and even former presidents like Obama, Clinton and Bush? Right?
Had this gone the other way, this would've exposed former Presidents to legal exposure, like Obama's extrajudicial droning of two US citizen. (a case the ACLU has that is still mired in district court)
The current majority recognized explicitly, something that was implictly recognized since the founding, that Presidents has some immunity. SCOTUS hadn't had a chance, until now, to rule on something like this... is why it took so long.
It's like, SCOTUS conferred the doctrine of Qualified Immunity"-lite", that prosecutors/judges/public officials currently enjoys. Why did I put the qualifier of "-lite" in the “Qualified immunity” above? Because had SCOTUS granted the full doctrine for the President, it would be MUCH more favorable to the President than this recent ruling.
Why? Because to get past qualified immunity, you have to point to an exact matching case showing they should have known better, and there are few if any cases limiting what Presidents can do.
So, no, Presidents are not Kings nor has ever been recognized as such. SCOTUS merely recognized that and used easy to follow separation-of-powers rationale. It does leave Presidents and former open to possible criminal litigation so long as the "official v. non-official" tests has been vetting in district court. Although, the bar to pierce that does seem quite high... almost near impossible, so we may get more challenges in the future for more fine tuning.
I think I dig Justice ACB’s concurrence/minor dissent than the full majority. In that she’s saying that POTUS doesn’t have express immunity per Constitution, but does have constitutional claims to challenge alleged criminal charges as unconstitutional. The difference between ACB's and the majority's rationale, is that the former places the burden of 'unconstitutional' claims on the POTUS, whereas the latter places the burden to rebutt immunity claims on the government.
So, no, the caterwauling over this rule that Biden can order Seal Team 6 to assassinate his political rivals and claim immunity (or the likes) doesn't hold any water.
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Jul 3, 2024 9:10:30 GMT -5
You are making the assumption that people support Obama having immunity over ordering drone strikes just because he was on their "team". I would wager most left-leaning people in this thread would support Obama standing trial for that and think it was bad.
However, there is also a clear distinction between actions taken abroad and on US soil. A drone strike on US citizens on US soil would be a very different kettle of fish... until now.
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Jul 3, 2024 9:17:23 GMT -5
You are making the assumption that people support Obama having immunity over ordering drone strikes just because he was on their "team". I would wager most left-leaning people in this thread would support Obama standing trial for that and think it was bad. However, there is also a clear distinction between actions taken abroad and on US soil. A drone strike on US citizens on US soil would be a very different kettle of fish... until now. No, I'm trying to make the point that there WOULD be litigation over something that could be argued as core-Article II powers. I only offered the Obama drone program as an example. There are folks here in the states who still wants George Bush charged for the decision to go to war in Iraq. Had this case gone the other way, my point is that former presidents would face numerous litigations that would cast a chilling effect on current Presidents who needs to make robust & vigorous decisions day-to-day. I highly encourage you to read the majority opinion (and also Barrett's slight dissent too): www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 435
|
Post by skyth on Jul 3, 2024 9:32:48 GMT -5
Considering he intentionally lied to cause the death of people...Hmmmm...Though not sure what law was broken here. Definitely an immoral act.
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 435
|
Post by skyth on Jul 3, 2024 9:36:15 GMT -5
And it's funny how over 200 years of presidents handled things just fine and weren't worried about being prosecuted for non-illegal stuff.
I could have sworn that I've seen conservatives spout the line about 'if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have to worry about being surveilled' line before...Funny that.
And I'll just note that Presidents can still be impeached with no actual wrongdoings so they could still "face numerous litigations that would cast a chilling effect on current Presidents who needs to make robust & vigorous decisions day-to-day."
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Jul 3, 2024 9:39:05 GMT -5
I think a chilling effect on ordering assassinations is good actually... They should be a tool of last resort that is highly scrutinised. As should taking a nation into war.
If a president doesn't think they can defend the harm caused by their decision in the dock, then they shouldn't be making that order.
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Jul 3, 2024 9:44:33 GMT -5
And it's funny how over 200 years of presidents handled things just fine and weren't worried about being prosecuted for non-illegal stuff. If you want to blame someone for that, look no further than the current lawfare employed by Democrats. Otherwise, SCOTUS wouldn't have the opportunity to make this ruling. Good thing I'm not a conservative. Oh, impeachment is still absolutely on the table. Nothing in this SCOTUS ruling has hampered in any way of Congress' own inherent impeachment powers. In fact, I think it puts more of an emphasis for Congress to wisely use impeachment in the future.
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Jul 3, 2024 9:47:23 GMT -5
I think a chilling effect on ordering assassinations is good actually... They should be a tool of last resort that is highly scrutinised. As should taking a nation into war. If a president doesn't think they can defend the harm caused by their decision in the dock, then they shouldn't be making that order. Yeah. Indeed. That's why I think Justice ACB's minor dissent in her concurrence has the right of it. Make former president assert that any future litigation is unconstitutional, rather than this presumptive immunity framework that this SCOTUS opinion delivered. But, again, I want to point out that this opinion covers all Presidents... not, just Trump.
|
|