I think that's rather her point. We are already doomed.
Think about how the Executive handled rival political movements in the past. The Black Panthers. CPUSA circa 1919. Now imagine Fred Hampton had been running for President when he was killed.
The line between "political opponent" and "enemy of the State" can become pretty blurry. This ruling gives the Executive broad power to act in its own interests when it can claim the line is blurry.
No, it's not. Because contradictions exist (is it official when it's unconstitutional? Is it official because it's mentioned in the constitution?) and are not yet resolved.
Anything laid out as a Presidential power in the Constitution is definitely an "official act". What is left for definition is everything else, from my understanding.
IANAL, but those seem like constitutional acts, and have absolute immunity, rather than simply presumptive immunity.
From the article:
> “Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. “And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
There aren't just 2 types of acts. There are 3: constitutional, official, and unofficial.
> At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity.
Article 2, which talks about the president's powers, is vague and has not been stress tested to the same extent it's likely to now be (it seems like there will be a lot of debate around minutiae for years, just based off the trump presidency and charges brought).
As such, the phrase "exercise of his core constitutional power" is significantly less straightforward than it might seem at first glance.
If you read through the ruling, a lot more questions arise than answers. And Sotomayor's dissent only highlights how they don't know themselves. And it's not as though it was clear before this ruling. It was unclear, and this ruling says very little in practice.
Under the same line of thought, soldiers in the military will always follow what their commander say, least order to comes to remove a soldier and their loved ones.
Get control of the senate. It wouldn't have mattered if they gave him his day, he wasn't going to get nominated. The republicans nominated Robert Bork back in the day, and the dems (then in control of the senate) voted it down. It's basically the same thing - the system working as intended.
Republicans refused to hold the vote on Garland, spouting off nonsense about “No new justices in an election year”. The same people rammed judges through in Trumps last year. Typical right wing hypocrisy.
It would have put a lot of prominent Republicans - including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell - in an awkward position because a number of them had previously said he was a great candidate for the court.
So, they either make a liar out of themselves, or become a rank hypocrite.
Anyway, I'll grant it's symbolically different and it wasn't a good look. In practice though, the senate has to be on board with the nomination and in both cases they were not and it didn't go through in either.
The funny thing is.. we are in a similar spot now too -- what with gerontocracy unwilling to let go of power -- and, it will likely surprise no one, amazingly long lived consequences.
And if the last nine years have proven anything, most of the system will say "well, that wasn't technically a line, just something we've always done a certain way that was up for change at any moment's notice should one person decide to do so."
It is, frankly, moon logic. The President is commander-in-chief, ergo, they are immune from prosecution when issuing an order to the military, even if the order is illegal? Because the Constitution says the President can issue orders and doesn't say anything about whether those orders need to be legitimate or justifiable in any sort of national context? Repeat for the Justice Department, or Immigration, or any of the many offices that fall under the executive branch. Apparently if the President is insane, or corrupt, or treasonous... that's a problem for all of us, but not necessarily a problem for the President.
Really does a number on the ‘unlawful order’ doctrine for military accountability. Has SCOTUS made ‘just following orders’ a valid legal defense?
They’ve also made much of the fact that the presidential authority to pardon is constitutionally unreviewable, so even if the president orders someone to commit a crime, he can pardon them preemptively. His appointment power is similarly in the constitution, so he can also fire and replace them until he finds someone willing to do it.
Are we really left with ‘if the president were to issue illegal orders to his staff, Congress would definitely impeach him’?
The president telling any member of his cabinet to do anything is presumptively an official act, and the evidence of him doing so is categorically forbidden from being used as evidence. (Hell, that's more extreme than even Trump's lawyers asked for! This basically overturns US v Nixon in its quest to elevate
This is an opinion that might make sense if we were being asked if a president ordering drone assassinations makes him liable for murder. In the context of the president trying to instigate a coup for not being reelected, to the point that his own government is threatening mass resignation if he carries it out in protest at the sheer unconstitutionality of it... this is the kind of question that almost begs SCOTUS to say "make a narrow ruling as to whether or not this specific instance is permissible" and SCOTUS decides instead to make a grand, sweeping proclamation for all ages and circumstances and neglect to look at the specific facts in this case and leave it unanswered here.
Roberts, let this case be your Dred Scott decision, your Korematsu decision. You've certainly done more to torpedo the credibility of the court in one decision than any other case in the past few decades... and that's saying quite a bit.
We were doomed when Republicans decided that impeachment was a partisan tool and could not be used against Trump. They broke the system by abandoning their constitutional duties so we are now looking into the abyss.
A do-over of both impeachment trials in the Senate would seem to be necessary, given that many senators went on record as saying they believed presidents were subject to criminal prosecution and chose not to convict for that reason. This changes that calculus.
That... is a bold misstatement of basic facts. IIRC[1] Democracts introduced a bill to impeach Trump in very partisan fashion, and then cried foul when Republicans made an attempt to impeach Biden. Amusingly, this is partially how we got to see the other part of the Hunter Biden laptop saga.
But to your main point, do you remember why Democrats tried to impeach Trump? I am leaving it as a question, because I am curious how you are intending to defend that record.
They impeached Trump twice, members of both parties voted to impeach both times (more in the latter than the former).
The first time Trump used his power as president of a superpower to attempt to force a poor country to make up a fake investigation into his political rival. This is bad, basically unprecedented.
This is literally because the individual in question was notably corrupt and not for political gain.
>> It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it
was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to
a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and
Europe.
> Ah, yes, the ever-present siren song of bipartisanship[2]. House had 10 defectors
Just a point of reference for me though. Would one count the impeachment as bipartisan or are we just playing with words? I mean, we can, but it gets silly fast.
<< because the individual in question was notably corrupt and not for political gain.
I did not you ask why. You used qualifier unprecedented, which was inaccurate ( I am giving you the benefit of the doubt ). And this is before we get to the part that finding a non-corrupt official there is kinda hard ( edit: which makes the distinction irrelevant ).
You are not one bit concerned that it is a little like saying "There is pee in the ocean"? It is certainly true, but it is irrelevant. I guess what I am saying is that you are technically correct[1] when it comes to definition, but wrong where it actually matters -- reality. I might as well start calling ocean pee now.
<< the problem is pressuring Ukraine for dirt on your opponent.
Is this the fragment[2] you are referring to?
"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it."
Seems like a reasonable request does it not? edit: if not, why not?
The reality is Democrats and Republicans both said Trump should be removed from office. Amash and Romney the first time, a dozen more the next.
> "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it.
This is a QAnon-tier conspiracy theory not based in fact, so yeah it seems like an unreasonable request.
<< The reality is Democrats and Republicans both said Trump should be removed from office. Amash and Romney the first time, a dozen more the next.
Hmm. No. The reality is vast majority of Democrats and minimal amount of Republicans in House voted for Trump to be impeached ("House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment"[1] ) and Senate tries that impeachment ( same source ).
I will restate what I said in previous post. You are right on a technicality thanks to how politicians from both parties have used and perverted the word bipartisan. With that out of the way, I suppose we can argue over perception of this and I can tell you that I have yet to meet someone in person, who would argue with a straight face it was a not a partisan show.
<< This is a QAnon-tier conspiracy theory not based in fact, so yeah it seems like an unreasonable request.
Hmm. Well, I don't want to be too much of a pedant, but the facts are not known until a request for inquiry is made. Trump wasn't asking to determine whether Sailor Moon did 9/11. That would be crazy and/or unreasonable. Based on the standard placed by Biden ( see previous post ), this was not completely unreasonable ( though I can easily say questionable and maybe even dumb ).
Still, note that QAnon/conspiracy theory keywords mean nothing to me and do not present a valid argument; it is a lazy dismissal at best. Frankly, given the frenzy with which Democrats and affiliated media pursued this story made me think there was some fire behind the smoke. Now, I mostly dismiss it, but I don't know who knew what when.
You know the majority can read the dissent right? If they felt it so silly they could have addressed it. Rather than contesting the claim they dismiss it because they feel its not as likely as other (seemingly non-mutually exclusive) concerns:
> The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” [...] The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive
Branch that cannibalizes itself...
Also important to note is that the hypothetical didn't sprout from thin air, Trump's lawyers (whose arguments SCOTUS in large part accepted) acknowledged that extrajudicial assassinations would fall under official acts.
That's not what they say, you cut off their actual response:
> The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. ... Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine.
Their argument isn't that it's not likely, it's that there's another failure mode that is even more likely.
The US has a long history of relying purely on executive latitude and good faith to get things done. We now have a bad faith actor who wants back in the Oval Office with far fewer restrictions on his power. A lawsuit or criminal charge would absolutely be a good remedy in that situation.
Furthermore, it's the implementation of a system. What the justices of the majority said today is "there is no system". When there is no system to deal with problems, then humans make them up ad-hoc, which usually results in violence, if history is any indicator - and it is.
That's a lot of words to not contest that political assassinations are covered under this framework of immunity.
> Their argument isn't that it's not likely, it's that there's another failure mode that is even more likely.
I know its hard to imagine, but I strongly feel there is some amount of presidential immunity that mitigates what they are worried about without also enabling political assassination.
You're misreading the text. It's not saying "if presidents assassinated their rivals they'd cannibalize themselves", it's saying "if executive branches got in the habit of prosecuting past presidents for official acts we'd be in a load of trouble, and that's a more likely scenario than assassinations."
Reasoning that more-or-less overlooks the entire history of the United States' treatment of bad political actors, from the Nixon pardon through the Lincoln pardons of the Confederates all the way to the multiple times Aaron Burr escaped justice for his prior service to the country.
It does make one question why this SCOTUS seems to think the future will break with precedent. Almost as if they're laying the groundwork for some significant changes to past decorum...
> But this Court has essentially made it clear that Trump isn’t going to be prosecuted. He gets to try to co-opt the political process and attempt a coup with impunity. We are doomed.
Well, then it sounds like sending a Seal team after him might be an official act.
