The President is Above the Law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be fascinated to see how this court would rule under a radical progressive president who attempts to assassinate his opponents and openly take bribes. I am also tired of justices pretending they're historians and have any good thumb on the history of this country-follow plain text if you want to be originalists but don't conjure up convenient analyses of history

Neither of these actions is covered by this ruling. Those are not "official" duties. Those are crimes, regardless of who is doing them.

If a crime has no enforcement possibility then is it really a crime?

Crime absolutely has enforcement possibility.
Tell me exactly how assassinating Justices on SCOTUS is an official act.

The President can order the military to assassinate anyone - he is the Commander-in-Chief so any order he gives is an official act - and no one is allowed to look at the President's motive and the evidence of the official act is inadmissible.

How fascinating that Obama …asserted this same exact thing.

“The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat… “Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply.”

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-kill-americans-outside-combat-zones

Perhaps, there is a difference between targeting a real terrorist who is an American citizen and targeting a political rival on the argument that he is a national security risk. Both are okay with the current Supremes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that one side is salivating at the thought that they could have a candidate be king while the other side is heartbroken because of what it means for democracy and this country is all you really need to know about who you should vote for this election.... I'm talking up and down the ticket not just the president.

Oh give it a rest. We’ve been rightly saying that the media and DNC has been lying about a lot of things over the past several years from Covid to Russia and now Biden’s state of mind. And we have been right. You say you fear for our democracy; well having a political party keeping such important information about Biden from voters is not democracy, it’s oligarchy.

Maybe start listening to the other side of the aisle and aim for some common ground instead of the dark demonization.

Nope. Never dance with the devil and his spawns.

Enjoy the loss.

You're so tunnel vision that you don't realize that nobody wins, at least not people who have to work for a living and have nowhere else to go. Maybe this doesn't apply to you and you can be so myopic.

The economy was significantly better under Trump. I enjoyed going to the grocery store in a pre inflation era.

No, actually it wasn't. It was prerecession territory

Not before Covid it wasn’t. But you knew that.

No you're wrong. I earned more money precovid and my 401k increased more in the last three years than in the first three years of Trump. Gas is roughly the same. Food is more expensive but that's because the minimum wage went up and you have to pay the period who pick, pluck, market and prepare your food. Or do you think you are the only person entitled to raises and not the people who keep you fed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be fascinated to see how this court would rule under a radical progressive president who attempts to assassinate his opponents and openly take bribes. I am also tired of justices pretending they're historians and have any good thumb on the history of this country-follow plain text if you want to be originalists but don't conjure up convenient analyses of history

Neither of these actions is covered by this ruling. Those are not "official" duties. Those are crimes, regardless of who is doing them.

Not according to the SCOTUS. Read the decision.

I did.
Those are NOT official duties.
And, to the pp above who thinks Joe Biden could assassinate Justices - that is such crap. That is NOT an official act. At all.
And, as far as trying to throw DJT in jail - that is actually what is happening now. Have you not been paying attention?

No, Joe is not throwing the Small One in jail. He has not ordered or requested or pressured any prosecutors to pursue the Small One. Moreover, it is not the prosecutors that will throw the Small One in jail. It is a Judge if and only if he is convicted and sentenced through the various Federal and state proceedings. No comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you all not remember that Obama directed the CIA to kill an American in Yemen who had never been charged with or convicted of a crime?

Do you think in the presidency of Trump, launching federal charges against Obama for this murder would not be condemned by the left?

Eh. National security risk and he was killing other Americans. But you already knew this right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be fascinated to see how this court would rule under a radical progressive president who attempts to assassinate his opponents and openly take bribes. I am also tired of justices pretending they're historians and have any good thumb on the history of this country-follow plain text if you want to be originalists but don't conjure up convenient analyses of history

Neither of these actions is covered by this ruling. Those are not "official" duties. Those are crimes, regardless of who is doing them.

If a crime has no enforcement possibility then is it really a crime?

Crime absolutely has enforcement possibility.
Tell me exactly how assassinating Justices on SCOTUS is an official act.

The President can order the military to assassinate anyone - he is the Commander-in-Chief so any order he gives is an official act - and no one is allowed to look at the President's motive and the evidence of the official act is inadmissible.

How fascinating that Obama …asserted this same exact thing.

“The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat… “Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply.”

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-kill-americans-outside-combat-zones

Perhaps, there is a difference between targeting a real terrorist who is an American citizen and targeting a political rival on the argument that he is a national security risk. Both are okay with the current Supremes.

And today's ruling helps the President even further but not requiring him to provide any motive, much less proof of the threat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you ever took a civics class you would understand that a President has immunity for official acts, not private. The burden of proof is discerning official vs private. The SC got it right. This is nothing new. The sheeple are out in full force today,

No, it is new. And it is nowhere to be found in that famous document called the Constitution. The immunity given the MAGA Justices are really similar to the King. The only difference is that the King had unlimited power even outside whatever one might consider his core authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you all not remember that Obama directed the CIA to kill an American in Yemen who had never been charged with or convicted of a crime?

Do you think in the presidency of Trump, launching federal charges against Obama for this murder would not be condemned by the left? [/quote

What law do you think this violated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be fascinated to see how this court would rule under a radical progressive president who attempts to assassinate his opponents and openly take bribes. I am also tired of justices pretending they're historians and have any good thumb on the history of this country-follow plain text if you want to be originalists but don't conjure up convenient analyses of history

Neither of these actions is covered by this ruling. Those are not "official" duties. Those are crimes, regardless of who is doing them.

If a crime has no enforcement possibility then is it really a crime?

Crime absolutely has enforcement possibility.
Tell me exactly how assassinating Justices on SCOTUS is an official act.

The President can order the military to assassinate anyone - he is the Commander-in-Chief so any order he gives is an official act - and no one is allowed to look at the President's motive and the evidence of the official act is inadmissible.

How fascinating that Obama …asserted this same exact thing.

“The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat… “Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply.”

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-kill-americans-outside-combat-zones

Perhaps, there is a difference between targeting a real terrorist who is an American citizen and targeting a political rival on the argument that he is a national security risk. Both are okay with the current Supremes.

And today's ruling helps the President even further but not requiring him to provide any motive, much less proof of the threat.

No, motive is not required or allowed for official acts. For unofficial acts, it is a permissible inquiry. And how do you know if it's an official or unofficial act? You challenge it in court

I understand why the Supreme Court tried to set the bar so high, to deter problematic prosecution. But I'm not sure it will work like they want it to.

[Anonymous]

Chief Justice to Kagan, KBJ, and Sotomayor:

"Despite the unprecedented nature of this case, the significant constitutional questions that it raises, its expedited treatment in the lower courts and in this Court, the lack of factual analysis in the lower courts, and the lack of briefing on how to categorize the conduct alleged, the principal dissent would go ahead and declare all of it unofficial.

The other dissent, meanwhile, analyzes the case under comprehensive models and paradigms of its own concoction and accuses the Court of providing 'no meaningful guidance about how to apply [the] new paradigm or how to categorize a President’s conduct.' It would have us exhaustively define every application of Presidential immunity. Our dissenting colleagues exude an impressive infallibility. While their confidence may be inspiring, the Court adheres to time-tested practices instead—deciding what is required to dispose of this case and remanding after 'revers[ing] on a threshold question.'"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be fascinated to see how this court would rule under a radical progressive president who attempts to assassinate his opponents and openly take bribes. I am also tired of justices pretending they're historians and have any good thumb on the history of this country-follow plain text if you want to be originalists but don't conjure up convenient analyses of history

Neither of these actions is covered by this ruling. Those are not "official" duties. Those are crimes, regardless of who is doing them.

If a crime has no enforcement possibility then is it really a crime?

Crime absolutely has enforcement possibility.
Tell me exactly how assassinating Justices on SCOTUS is an official act.

The President can order the military to assassinate anyone - he is the Commander-in-Chief so any order he gives is an official act - and no one is allowed to look at the President's motive and the evidence of the official act is inadmissible.

How fascinating that Obama …asserted this same exact thing.

“The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat… “Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply.”

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-kill-americans-outside-combat-zones

Perhaps, there is a difference between targeting a real terrorist who is an American citizen and targeting a political rival on the argument that he is a national security risk. Both are okay with the current Supremes.

And today's ruling helps the President even further but not requiring him to provide any motive, much less proof of the threat.

No, motive is not required or allowed for official acts. For unofficial acts, it is a permissible inquiry. And how do you know if it's an official or unofficial act? You challenge it in court

I understand why the Supreme Court tried to set the bar so high, to deter problematic prosecution. But I'm not sure it will work like they want it to.

I have no idea what they were thinking. But this incentivizes political prosecutions. They explicitly said that the president can direct the justice department to bring sham prosecutions and he is immune. It would be trivial for a corrupt president to just come up with sham crimes unconnected to official acts. And of course he can go after allies, friends, family, etc. the incentive now is to stay in power so the other side can’t do it to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be fascinated to see how this court would rule under a radical progressive president who attempts to assassinate his opponents and openly take bribes. I am also tired of justices pretending they're historians and have any good thumb on the history of this country-follow plain text if you want to be originalists but don't conjure up convenient analyses of history

Neither of these actions is covered by this ruling. Those are not "official" duties. Those are crimes, regardless of who is doing them.

If a crime has no enforcement possibility then is it really a crime?

Crime absolutely has enforcement possibility.
Tell me exactly how assassinating Justices on SCOTUS is an official act.

The President can order the military to assassinate anyone - he is the Commander-in-Chief so any order he gives is an official act - and no one is allowed to look at the President's motive and the evidence of the official act is inadmissible.

How fascinating that Obama …asserted this same exact thing.

“The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat… “Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply.”

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-kill-americans-outside-combat-zones

Perhaps, there is a difference between targeting a real terrorist who is an American citizen and targeting a political rival on the argument that he is a national security risk. Both are okay with the current Supremes.

And today's ruling helps the President even further but not requiring him to provide any motive, much less proof of the threat.

No, motive is not required or allowed for official acts. For unofficial acts, it is a permissible inquiry. And how do you know if it's an official or unofficial act? You challenge it in court

I understand why the Supreme Court tried to set the bar so high, to deter problematic prosecution. But I'm not sure it will work like they want it to.

A military order is prima facie an official act.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

[Anonymous]

Seal Team 6? Ya'all are bat5h1t crazy! So extreme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seal Team 6? Ya'all are bat5h1t crazy! So extreme.

I know, he doesn't have to use Seal Team. Biden can do something less extreme and be just as effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seal Team 6? Ya'all are bat5h1t crazy! So extreme.

Trump’s own lawyer in SC arguments admitted that the President could use ST6 to assassinate someone. that’s why the dissenting justices quoted it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is the constitution never said it forbids abortion restrictions in 1972. Judges made it up.

Judges make stuff up I guess.

Republican judges make stuff up to protect the powerful.

You disagree with their interpretation of the law. Eh, it happens.

The judges in 1973 literally made up Roe vs Wade out of thin air.

I think the Civil War amendments allowing enslaved persons to control their own bodies may run counter to your thinking.