The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially
The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially
Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight-year crime spree and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable.
You're viewing a single thread.
This is a lie.
I really don't understand how people are twisting this so dramatically. The president is still bound by the law of the constitution. No president can just go on a killing spree. They still need to operate in an official capacity as POTUS. I mean, I understand we don't want to give Trump a win under any circumstances but he most certainly can still be held accountable for his actions.
presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for official acts,
This is simply not true. There are three levels of actions: core actions defined by the constitution, other official actions as president, and acts outside of being president. It's the first "core" actions that are immune simply because they are defined in the constitution - pardons, appointments, etc. It's like saying putting on your turn signal to make a turn is immune from prosecution. Other actions as president are presumed to be immune but that does not mean they are "absolutely" immune from prosecution.
Presidents are now entitled to “absolute” immunity, which means that no matter what they do, the immunity cannot be lost. They are always and forever immune, no matter what evidence is brought to bear. There is no crime that pierces the veil of absolute immunity.
This is 100% NOT TRUE.
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 as- sassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in ex- change for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor
Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I really don't know what she's going on about and I'm a little concerned.
The only reason they separated out official acts is to stall the ruling on trump's case. If it goes back to the SCOTUS they will say all acts are official but rule on the very last day they can. They are doing this to delay it until after the election.
That article states they will be removed if convicted. The new ruling states that for anything considered "official", the president can no longer be convicted. That's the problem.
That is NOT what they have ruled. They have ruled that there is a presumptive immunity. That means it can be challenged upon judicial review.
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.
Roberts then goes on to explain how all but one of the charges need to go back to the courts to determine if he was acting in an official capacity.
Then you need reading lessons.
For eight years we've been told we're overreacting as we predict all this stuff like Trump stuffing the courts with conservative activists, overturning Roe, killing chevron deference, and generally legislating from the bench. Poorly written law can be interpreted however they like. True or not, the SCOTUS majority has proven that they don't care what's written in the constitution, law books, etc. Whether or not you think the law can be interpreted a certain way, they are now set up to do whatever they like because even though they don't make the laws, they actually, implicitly do.
SCOTUS majority has proven that they don’t care what’s written in the constitution
That's an odd take being that they're heavily relying on Article II to define which of a president's actions are immune and everything outside of that is either open to interpretation or absolutely NOT immune.
I should have said "cherry-pick" what's written in the constitution.
Hey, many actual members of the bar have said it is now legal (in that he is immune from prosecution) for Joe Biden to order the military to kill Donald Trump. You'll forgive me if I trust their analysis over that of oxjox@lemmy.ml.
I'd like to know what has changed. My assumption is that it has always been legal given it was done for reasonable reasons (national security, etc). Are they claiming that now the president can kill anyone they wish with no reason whatsoever? Has this wholly removed the fourth section of Article II?
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.