YSK the full scope of the recent US presidential immunity decision
YSK the full scope of the recent US presidential immunity decision
TLDR: there are no qualifying limitations on presidential immunity
Not only does any US president now have complete immunity from "official" actions(with zero qualifying restrictions or definitions), but if those actions are deemed "unofiicial", no jury is legally allowed to witness the evidence in any way since that would interfere with the now infinitely broad "official" presidential prerogatives.
Furthermore, if an unofficial atrocity is decided on during an official act, like the president during the daily presidential briefing ordering the army to execute the US transexual population, the subsequent ordered executions will be considered legally official presidential acts since the recorded decision occurred during a presidential duty.
There are probably other horrors I haven't considered yet.
Then again, absolute immunity is absolute immunity, so I don't know how much threat recognition matters here.
If the US president can order an action, that action can be legally and officially carried out.
Not constitutionally, since the Constitution specifically holds any elected politician subject to the law, but legally and officially according to the supreme court, who has assumed higher power then the US Constitution to unconstitutionally allege that the US President is absolutely immune from all legal restrictions and consequences.
You're viewing a single thread.
I realized today, by giving the president protection from the law, the opinion also implies the court system, including SCOTUS is too incompetent to adjudicate.
In another country where we had actual jurists on the bench representing the highest council for 320,000,000 people, I'd expect them to be more than capable and willing to wade through the delicate nuances of any presidental action, and determine if criminal acts were justified in the service of the state. But Roberts essentially is admitting he and his associates are either too inept or too corrupt, and either way are not up to the task.
If the US democracy is to survive, we will not just need a constitutional amendment, but a complete judicial overhaul, and a federal election reform to restore power to elections and thus, to the people. Until all this happens, we are governed at gunpoint, rather than by consent.
So put away your fireworks. The nation is too unwell to be celebrated.
It's definitely the latter, corruption.
There's no way the conservative justices could have drawn many of their conclusions with any consistent interpretation of the constitution and the enumerated rights.
The court conservatives are clearly advancing corporate and political partisan interests and interpreting identical constitutional amendments and passages different ways on different decisions.
Thomas has explicitly said that all he wants to do is hurt liberals, and accepted gifts from wealthy donors with connections to cases he oversees.
I'm sure he's not the only one.
I think the most realistic way of undoing this ruling is for Biden to step down and Harris or someone else to take over. They would very likely win, and if the turnout is strong enough, they could use a legislative majority to either pack the courts or impeach/replace a few Republican Justices. The now majority liberal court could contrive some excuse to make a new ruling on presidential immunity and overturn the previous one.
It requires a lot of things to go fairly well and for the Democrats to be more organized and competent than they've ever been, but it is Possible, unlike a constitutional amendment imo.
Replacing the major candidate who already passed significant democratic legislation for 4 years is unlikely to result in greater Democratic faith or voter galvanization.
Harris certainly does not have that kind of momentum or support.
Any sort of candidate scramble now is all but forfeiting the 2024 election to trump.
Democrats already functionally control the Senate and have for biden's four presidential years; I can't see how nervously replacing Biden wins them any more seats, even optimistically.
That said, by the numbers, keeping the house majority and packing the court is more likely than a complete constitutional rewrite, a strategy I used as an example to show just how bleak the chance of restoring the us balance of executive power is.
He's polling worse than "generic Democrat" and he can barely form a coherent sentence. Fundamentally, I just don't believe there is a person who would vote for Biden, but not Harris or Whittmer or whoever, but there's lots of people who lack confidence in Biden and would be more likely to vote if someone else was nominated.
Presidential polls are absurd propaganda at this point, and I guess you're referring to the same two clips fox news hasn't stopped running since the debate rather than to his obvious first term track record of "being old and still reliably and actively passing progressive legislation".
He already won against trump, he regularly passes progressives legislation, you vote for Biden and get Harris anyway if you want a backup.
I can't imagine how abandoning a proven candidate who beat trump before inspires political confidence if you haven't been successfully manipulated to trust in the reliability of conservative media instead of years of reality.
The leaked internal DNC poll is what I'm referencing here. Why would the poll conducted under the direct supervision of the DNC for their own personal use be exaggerating Biden's weakness?
Likely the same reason you believe replacing a successful incumbent with "generic Democrat" is politically advantageous: manipulated faith in popular conservative media.