this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
455 points (93.8% liked)

politics

19145 readers
3628 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that American presidents have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for any “official acts” they take while in office. For President Joe Biden, this should be great news. Suddenly a host of previously unthinkable options have opened up to him: He could dispatch Seal Team 6 to Mar-A-Lago with orders to neutralize the “primary threat to freedom and democracy” in the United States. He could issue an edict that all digital or physical evidence of his debate performance last week be destroyed. Or he could just use this chilling partisan decision, the latest 6-3 ruling in a term that was characterized by a staggering number of them, as an opportunity to finally embrace the movement to reform the Supreme Court.

But Biden is not planning to do any of that. Shortly after the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Trump v. The United States, the Biden campaign held a press call with surrogates, including Harry Dunn, a Capitol police officer who was on duty the day Trump supporters stormed the building on Jan. 6; Reps. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas); and deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks.

Their message was simple: It’s terrifying to contemplate what Donald Trump might do with these powers if he’s reelected.

“We have to do everything in our power to stop him,” Fulks said.

Everything, that is, except take material action to rein in the increasingly lawless and openly right-wing Supreme Court.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Yeah, but killing people is still illegal, so even if it was official, he can be impeached.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

But that's not all. They also ruled that you can't use official acts in the process of determining what wasn't an official act. If Biden ordered the military to assassinate Trump, the fact that the President is Constitutionally the head of the military and that the military must obey orders from the President couldn't be used as evidence that he gave an illegal order.

This situation is fucked up.

[–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

The US military can choose to ignore illegal orders to execute citizens protected by the Constitution. They did not swear an oath to the president, only an oath to protect the Constitution.

No military leader will want to go to a military tribunal where arbitration is decided as punishment and has no jury by peers. It would be either a death sentence if any military official followed the order, or a hard life in a military prison.

In fact, I read that it is codified in the US law Uniform Code of Military justice to be obligated to deny an illegal or an immoral order.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

My dude, you're acting like Monday's decision didn't happen.

SCOTUS delineated presidential immunity into three situations:

  1. Unofficial acts- no immunity.

  2. Official acts- presumed immunity. However, no official acts can be used to determine the legality or official-ness of an act.

  3. Constitutionally delegated exercises of authority- total immunity.

In other words, laws are subordinate to Presidential exercises of Constitutional authority. Under the decision rendered by SCOTUS on Monday, as the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, any order he gives the military he would have total immunity for and thus wouldn't be "illegal" as such. Also, because the pardon power is listed in the Constitution, there's no oversight for it either.

So yes, the President could absolutely order the military to assassinate a citizen with the promise of pardoning them, and there's literally no recourse anyone could take.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 2 points 4 months ago

Unquestionable pardons all around!

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Can you even consider the killing in the impeachment trial? He has absolute immunity from criminal acts.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

He has absolute immunity from Prosecution for official acts. Impeachment is not a Prosecution (a criminal court proceeding) in that sense: it's a legislative act which looks a lot like a prosecution, but is fundamentally different. So impeachments are not bound by this same rule. Presidents can be impeached for anything, even the color of their shirt, if a majority of the House thinks it's a "high crime or misdemeanor".

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

But who's going to do the impeaching when everyone who would oppose it can simply also be killed?

[–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 0 points 4 months ago

Either you go buy a fucking gun and aggressively protest, or keep complaining online. I'm just saying it's going to buff out either way.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You can be impeached for basically anything. But you still need 67 votes in the senate to be removed. And senators can also be murdered. Being able to have immunity for murder as long as you murder anyone who would deny it is a self-empowering ability.

[–] Akuden@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The president acts through people. Asking the military to murder Americans on American soil is the easy slam dunk straight to pound me in the ass federal prison for life idea you've ever come up with.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't think you're quite getting the "he can kill anyone who would oppose him" issue.

And literally that he has absolute immunity for acts in his constitutional powers, which including telling the military to kill people. At best the order would be refused, but that's still not an illegal act. You don't need to trust me, you can just read the dissenting Supreme Court justices. The "Seal Team 6" hypothetical was never addressed by the majority, because it's a pretty direct consequence of the ruling, just something they hope wouldn't happen or wouldn't work.

[–] Akuden@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The president can't kill anyone who opposes him. The president is subject to the laws just like anyone else. Breaking the law is not part of his official duty. Assassinating someone the president doesn't like is against the law.

Assassinating an enemy of the United States is a different story. The president cannot claim a citizen of the United States with no criminal activity or record against the United States is an enemy. Furthermore, the military cannot use force on citizens of the United States. The FBI can, and the president doesn't control the FBI the judicial branch does.

Aren't checks and balances fun?!

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 4 months ago

LOL, this is all just fantasy law, and the stuff that's real is stripped by this ruling. The president can use powers designated to them in the constitution with absolute immunity. Regular law can't change what those powers are, only constitutional amendments. They used to make using them in certain ways illegal, but that's exactly what this ruling gives immunity against. All the guys doing the order, they could still be liable for doing illegal actions, but the president is immune, and they may not actually have any reason to think the president has not determined that the correct circumstances exist to make it legal. And if they agreed with the president he could just pardon them so no one was liable.

Also, I have no idea why you think the FBI is a judicial organization. It's in the executive. It's normally, by custom, treated as semi-independent, but that's a custom, not a law, and the only non-constitutional act the ruling explicitly said is official is the president telling the justice department to do things. Again, the people doing the things may have to worry about the law, but the president ordering them does not and can pardon them if he wants to.