You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
134 points

And they’ve also argued that ordering assassinations of political rivals are official acts.

So now Biden has the best opportunity of all time to clean and prevent the fascist right wing usurpation of the nation.

permalink
report
reply
77 points

I mean, that’s what this comes to, right? If he ordered Seal Team Six to storm Mar-A-Lago to recover classified materials with deadly force, then he’s operating in order to maintain national security via his authority as Commander in Chief. That would be legal under this ruling, correct?

I get that would lead to an actual civil war, and I get that their argument is important to shield the office from neverending frivolous lawsuits, but in being forced to rule so explicitly on this it seems like they’ve opened the door to political assassinations. All a President would need is a willing wing of the military and a superficial rationalization and there’d be nothing a court in this country could do about it.

Please, someone tell me I’m missing something.

permalink
report
parent
reply
61 points

“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor wrote.

permalink
report
parent
reply
56 points
*

You’re missing that the Supreme Court is taking the piss and the District Court they’re kicking this back to has already done their homework and defined the official acts versus unofficial acts. They’re ret-2-go but the Supreme’s did their job of punting this until at least October, since that’s when they come back from vacation. So when the District Court punts it back up the chain to the Supreme Court, they have to wait for the Supreme Court to reconvene. It’s fucking stupid, but it accomplished getting Trump nothing but a legal time-out.

Oh, ALSO:

Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.

They literally fucked us out of a ton of evidence with this part of the ruling.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points
*

The main thing you’re missing is that the words of the court are meaningless. They’ll always be able to use the next ruling to bend the outcome to the conservatives’ whims.

This is a government of men, not laws. Always has been.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

“When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

Of course that’s only for Republican presidents. The Supreme Court has already shown that they don’t care about precedent, so if Biden does something, it’ll come back up and they’ll find it was not an official act and can be prosecuted, no matter what it was.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-12 points

I don’t think assassinations of political rivals would be covered under the president’s constitutional duties.

permalink
report
parent
reply
43 points
*

But national security is. All they would need is a flimsy justification that the person was stealing state secrets (like Trump) or organizing a terrorist attack, which could include any contact with an armed or paramilitary group that’s planning a protest. They could use state influence to coerce that group to take action, and the records of that planning process would be inadmissible per this ruling. It’s not hard to come up with superficial reasons that do align with Constitutional obligations.

Edit to add: Hell, just look at the McCarthy era, or the Iraq war. It’s not hard at all for a sufficiently shameless group of politicians to gin up a moral panic about national security. They don’t even need evidence, they just need motive. We’re real fucking close to the government being able to legally assassinate purported communists for subversion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

They’ve already argued that it is. They’ve literally argued that assassinating a political rival, while president, is an official act.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

He didn’t want to pack the court so I’m not holding out hope that he’d empty the court either. Obviously assassinating justices would completely fuck the country up, but one could argue that the current justices are slow playing us into a fascist dictatorship.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Well, they’re doing it faster and faster lately…

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

One justice put that out there during oral arguments, but I’ve read the majority ruling and it doesn’t mention assassinations. The dissenting opinion does mention the question of what acts fall within official duties, including political assassinations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Honestly, the quickest way out is to officially order the summary executions of the judges who established this new immunity - then pass a second law ordering that SCOTUS must always evenly represent all major parties, one out, one in.

Then get new judges in that will reverse the immunity ruling. That way this sort of problem won’t come up again.

Sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be watered with blood. This is may be one of those times.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

No need to pack the court, just a little housekeeping 💅

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

That’s how you create a martyr. And probably kick off a civil war if he did it openly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

But too bad he won’t, he’s too much of a chicken and Christian.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 8.7K

    Posts

  • 157K

    Comments