The justices of the supreme court ruled that Trump was immune and effectively above the law while being president. What is now stopping Biden from bringing a gun to the next debate?
The justices of the supreme court ruled that Trump was immune and effectively above the law while being president. What is now stopping Biden from bringing a gun to the next debate?
If inciting an insurrection towards their own government is an action without legal repercussions, I don't see how the law would be less lenient about straight up firing a gun at an opponent.
I by no means want any party to resolve to violent tactics. So even though I play with the thought, I really don't want anything like it to happen. I am just curious if it's actually the case that a sitting president has now effectively a licence to kill.
What am I missing?
The immunity from criminal prosecution has to do with official acts, not personal acts. It wouldn't apply to Biden personally shooting Trump.
It would apply to a military proclamation as commander-in-chief that the Trump movement is a domestic insurrectionist movement that carried out an armed attack on the US Congress; that the Trump movement thus exists in a state of war against the United States; and directing the US Army to decapitate the movement by capturing or killing its leaders, taking all enemy combatants as prisoners of war, etc. (Now consider that the Army is only obliged to follow constitutional orders, and would have Significant Questions about the constitutionality of such an order.)
Further, the immunity is only from criminal prosecution and would not protect Biden from impeachment and removal from office by Congress while the Army is still figuring out whether the order is constitutional.
Because what they really did was set themselves up as the ones who decide what is and isn't an official act.
As long as there is a right-wing supreme court, any action by a republican president will be official and immune, but if a democratic president tried to throw their weight around in the same... They'll get shut down.
His own devotion to ineffectiveness.
It has to be an official act within the scope of the executive branch. So he couldn't just bring a gun and shot him, however he could direct the justice department to focus on domestic terrorism and cite Trump's threats for political retribution as a terroristic threat and have him and every other Republican who publicly agreed with him disappeared.
Acts done in an official manner are immune. So for example if the president orders assassination of political leader of another country (what Trump did with Iran's Suleinami (I'm probably butchering name)). Protects president from prosecution for murder or whatever if there is evidence it was done in the interest of the state.
Another example is something Biden / Trump and even Hilary are guilty of. The misuse or mishandling of classified materials. Since they are acting in an official manner, it isn't a crime like it would be if a normal citizen mishandled the documents.
Acts done in an "unofficial manner" are not immune. So let's say a Mr President does some insider trading while president to enrich himself personally. That presumably would still be illegal and he could be charged.
So who decides what is official and what isn't? The courts. Lower courts make a determination and presumably it would go up to the SC if necessary.
It's an interesting question. For example- Reagan's Iran-Contra episode. Where his administration was smuggling cocaine in order to get money to covertly supply weapons to Iran. Would that be official or unofficial?
I think people need to realize the president has had broad powers to do a lot of dubious things for decades. This doesn't necessarily increase or decrease his power, but creates a potential pathway to either prosecute or acquit him. Whereas before, it always stayed in the legal gray zone (in Reagan's Iran Contra)
The supreme cunts can just change their ruling whenever they feel like it, so as long as it's their boss tRump it's fine but anyone
theytRump doesn't like they'll just make another decision saying you can't do that anymore.What is stopping BIDEN??? I'd say empathy and a good set of morals. Regardless of if you think he's fit to be president, I think nobody sane would argue that he's a good man. He's a good person. Even if he could do so consequence free, HE wouldn't.
The question is, what's stopping the next president with no morals? And that's a far more chilling scenario.
Answer: they would react differently if it were Biden versus Trump who did it. The SCOTUS would find a way to let Trump off while making Biden pay.
The immunity only applies to Republican presidents.
He should start with the supreme court if he has an ounce of worth.
He doesn’t even have to shoot anyone. Whoever interferes with an official act is clearly committing treason and can be sent to Gulag
That wouldn’t be an official act as president. What would be an official act as president would be nuking mar a lago, calling a special forces strike on trump, or possibly even getting him sent to Guantanamo
Is this the beginning of civil war?
For official business
It would make for a great example of everything that's wrong with it. I want it to happen. It'd halt a lot of the fascist push along with getting them to make their own counterarguments.
Biden has a moral compass, rusty as it may be. Trump has an AMORAL compass, all bright n shiny forever pointing at himself
His son's borrowing it.
You were missing the entire thing because that's not what the ruling was from SCOTUS. All it did was reiterate the current responsibility of the president that he is immune from some of his actions of his job function when acting within the purview of his official function. He Would not be granted immunity at all if he was doing something that broke the law or was acting on a personal nature