The President is Above the Law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are the Justices above the law?
Can a Justice be arrested, tried and incarcerated?
They decide the law so they are the law?

So much hubris in this court, I hope there is a reckoning.

According to Trump’s lawyer, a President could have Supreme Court Justices assassinated so long as the President frames it as an official action for the good of the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boo Hoo Trump loves America too much. Every single policy he promotes gets the majority in polls.

The bumbling and corrupt swamp can’t have that

What? A majority of Americans believe in a woman's right to choose. Trump has done more than any single person to restrict abortion.
A majority of Americans support stricter gun laws. Trump does not.
A majority of Americans condemn those who entered the Capitol on January 6. Trump calls them hostages.

Magas are so deeply bubbled that they really don’t understand anything at all. On some level they know the court is corrupt, they just don’t care because they think they’re going to be protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nina Totenberg has interesting input on the history of the justices who seemed sympathetic to Trump’s immunity claims. It’s worth a listen. Their earlier experiences may have shaped the conservative victim narrative.

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/26/1247383537/trumps-immunity-arguments-supreme-court-conservatives

Oh her coverage of the court has been so….great! She broke that corruption story on Thomas.

This is sarcasm, right?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not shocked. Lots of us are aware of how authoritarianism works. We’ve been tying to warn people - this is completely predictable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Brett Kavanaugh, who made his name in conservative legal circles as part of a criminal investigation of a president, is going to say that actually presidents are immune to criminal prosecution. Absolutely no shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not shocked. Lots of us are aware of how authoritarianism works. We’ve been tying to warn people - this is completely predictable.

And I swear to god we already heard this during the terrible four years. None of this is a surprise. Trump shutting down the immigration bill so that the “democrats wouldn’t have a win.” Him working with Russia. Roe. Project 2025. All his many crimes. That whole little coup.

The sickos who still want to vote GOP will. They think they’ll get all they want and will never have to pay for it and all they have to do is vote away democracy.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the Justices above the law?
Can a Justice be arrested, tried and incarcerated?
They decide the law so they are the law?

So much hubris in this court, I hope there is a reckoning.

According to Trump’s lawyer, a President could have Supreme Court Justices assassinated so long as the President frames it as an official action for the good of the country.

Interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the Justices above the law?
Can a Justice be arrested, tried and incarcerated?
They decide the law so they are the law?

So much hubris in this court, I hope there is a reckoning.

According to Trump’s lawyer, a President could have Supreme Court Justices assassinated so long as the President frames it as an official action for the good of the country.

Alito and the rest of the corrupt “conservative” (what are they “conserving”? They’re trying to install fascism) judges are a blight on this country for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have had liberal, conservative, a few unqualified Supreme Court justices but we have never had anything like this.

They did not argue the facts of the case. They just made things up to force there predetermined ruling. This court is corrupt.

Democrats ignore this at their own peril.

This. The Supreme Court is so corrupt. We need term limits and age limits. We need this lifetime appt of these corrupt justices to end.

This Supreme Court is about to decide that a President can decide to assassinate a corrupt person and couldn’t be prosecuted for it. Hmmmm… 🤔

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Situation #1

President Obama ordered a drone strike in Yemen to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen and Islamic Imam critical of American foreign policy in the Middle East. Before releasing the drones that killed al-Awlaki and two others, the White House sought and received a Memorandum from the Department of Justice providing legal justification for the attack.

Several questions come to mind. Should the memo from DoJ authorizing the killing of an American citizen abroad without judicial due process immunize President Obama for violating the federal criminal statute that imposes criminal penalties for the extra territorial killing of an American citizen?

Could a subsequent President, a member of the opposing political party, direct a new Attorney General to investigate whether the killing of the U.S. citizen by drone attack in Yemen violated federal criminal law? If an indictment is returned against the now former President for that killing, should President Obama be allowed to claim immunity or be forced to stand trial?

Situation #2

President Biden revoked many of President Trump’s Executive Orders addressing border security when he took office. He also halted construction of physical barriers intended to secure the southern border and stem the flow of illegal border crossings and the smuggling of dangerous drugs.

The number of illegal border crossings skyrocketed. Instead of remaining in Mexico until asylum claims were adjudicated, migrants were “paroled” into the interior of the United States and given a court date for their asylum claim years into the future.

The quantity of illegal drugs, and the deaths of American citizens from accidental drug overdoses smuggled across the southern border, escalated astronomically. Federal law imposes criminal penalties on those who enter the United States illegally. It also punishes conspiracies to violate federal law.

So, if the White House switches parties when President Biden leaves, should the new president’s Attorney General seek an indictment against Biden for conspiring with the Secretary of Homeland Security to violate U.S. immigration laws by facilitating the illegal entry of millions of migrants into the United States? Or should those policy choices be protected by a cloak of immunity?

Situation #3

Eager to deliver on a campaign promise, President Biden announced a policy to “forgive” billions of dollars in student loan debt. The Supreme Court struck down the President’s plan and held that Congress had not authorized the Executive to unilaterally forgive student loan debt.

Instead of seeking legislative authority, President Biden reworked his plan to rely upon a different statute for authority. Assume the courts dismissed lawsuits challenging Biden’s “Plan B” because the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. “Plan B” went forward and billions of dollars in federal student loans became “grants” instead of loans that had to be repaid.

The federal Anti-deficiency Act imposes criminal penalties on anyone who authorizes the expenditure of federal funds without a valid congressional appropriation. When President Biden leaves office, can he be indicted and tried because his “Plan B” loan scheme violated federal law?



https://realclearwire.com/articles/2024/04/26/immunity_for_me_but_not_for_thee_1027716.html

The answer is of course yes. Situation 3 involves 2 different statutes, and Supremes rules only on one. No decision on whether same reasoning applies to second statute. Situation 2 is a policy difference. Bident's intent was to deal with borders crossings in a different way. Perhaps, his different way did not work, but that was not the intent.

You're citing statutes. Statutes are never supposed to be opposed to the highest law in the land, The U.S. Constitution. With that said, why is the Head of the Executive Branch legislating spending?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

[Anonymous]

It’s weird how comfortable the corrupt justices on the court seem to be in hastening the destruction of America. I guess the Republicans are as bad as we all said they were, though of course you won’t hear any of this from the “mainstream” media.

[Anonymous]

Well. If this is what the SC says then President Biden needs to do what is necessary to defend democracy's future. It is his duty as president and, ergo, acting in his official capacity and give him immunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case will be found for Trump. At what point will enough be enough and we as a nation take action against this farce.

No...it will be sent back to the lower court to determine which of the charges apply to Trump's official duties and which apply to his actions on behalf of himself. Which will delay it past the election. So if we want to convict him we have to defeat him in November.

No
Special counsel can take Justice Barrett's advice and only charge Trump for his unofficial acts. Trial can start in August