Well, at least they didn’t hold a ceremony at the Supreme Court to present Donald Trump with a crown and a scepter, but that is about all they didn’t do. We’ll get to the effect of this massive expansion of presidential powers on Trump’s prosecution in a moment, but taken as a whole, this ruling, in
Listen to me: I don't care what example Sotomayor used in her dissent. I don't care who came up with the Seal Team Six example in the first place. It's not funny to joke around about killing someone, and I will not permit that in these comments. There's plenty of other shit to joke around about. Killing is not one of them. Knock it off.
But Lucian, surely itʼs within the realm of possibility that at least one Supreme Court justice could die within the next two years? And Trump probably wonʼt live much longer either...
The SC decision allows Biden to do just that, RIGHT NOW! This is why this decision is the stupidest, most misguided, corrupt, idiotic, unbelievable decision that has been handed down in the last century. Biden could call for the six conservative justices to be "removed." Immune. Immune. Immune. Immune. Immune. Immune.
And you know what, all of us would probably celebrate if this happened.
And yet, Trump promises to do just that. We don’t have to like the morals of this decision, but to not utilize the new ground rules, we are unilaterally disarming. Republicans should at least be encouraged to agree or disagree with this reading of the SC ruling. As in, why can’t Biden do just that?
Is it not valid to discuss the dissenting opinion of one of the liberal justices, who noted "Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune."
You're right, it isn't funny and not only that YOU set the tone on here, LKTIV. So joking around about something that serious is kind of nasty, if understandable. Much as we may all rightfully despise Trump etc. etc. etc.
Biden obviously would do nothing of the sort. But this decision does take the wind out of Trump's constant harping on Biden "weaponizing" the DOJ, because the court just approved of that. I doubt very much if it's going to stop Trump's harping on it, however. He wouldn't know hypocrisy if it was a 2 by 4 upside his head.
Won't the Extreme Court Six be surprised to find themselves in the next cellblock down from the big liar, doing life for stealing the U.S. constitution. [See Richard Knabel's reply to Susanna Sturgis.]
Until today, I kept hoping one the Court conservatives might pull a Warren or a Blackmon (or a Souter or a Stevens) and come to their senses. I will hope no more. If Joe Biden does nothing else as president, he should push the parameters of this decision to its absolute limit. Just watch how fast all the repubs line up at the Court to demand that the radical right "justices" carve out exceptions that apply only to Democratic presidents. I concur with Justice Sotomayor's dissent.
They should definitely indict his wife for her part in Jan 6, that will get his attention. The overall loathesomeness, I know probably not a word but it fits, of so many of them is hard to wrap your mind around. And to have the Chief Justice leading this and writing the decision, WTF 🤬. I used to think he had a brain, not any longer.
The Court essentially adopted the Nixon position, "if the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." The actual opinion is much worse than the headlines, Trump will claim anything he did was an "official act," and the Court held such acts are then presumptively an official act and motive can't be examined. Good luck to anyone ever trying to rebut that presumption, and if by some miracle they did, it would be reversed on appeal. Of course the King still has to be elected so we still have some chance to avoid this horror. And to make it all worse, the NYT headline glossed over it all saying, Trump "granted some immunity,"
The decision scares the hell out of me. If Trump is re-elected, now all he has to do is preface a decision by saying "As part of my official duties, I order . . ."
As others have pointed out, it applies to Biden too. So, as part of his official duties he should now call for the arrest or Gosar, Coons, Hawley, MJT, Boebert, Gaetz, and any of the other merry band of insurrectionists who encouraged and participated in Jan 6.
Not exactly. You have to remember there is a difference between being immune from prosecution for criminal acts which is regulated by law and overstepping authority, which is regulated by Congress.
Now, if Trump wins in November, the Supreme Court has authorized Biden to stage a coup. But, if he does, the Court will say that it meant for today’s decision to apply only to Republicans.
The Supreme Court did not authorize Biden or any other president to do anything. It only gave him immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. There is a world of difference between immunity and authority.
As a practical matter, I don't see much difference at all. Would you prefer if I change it to "implicitly authorize"? To tell the president that he will not be prosecuted for breaking the law is to implicitly authorize him or her to break the law.
I could think of 1000s of examples but this is one: Biden signed an executive order forgiving student debt. The Supreme Court overruled him. If he tried to do it again they would overrule him again. He can't expand the Supreme Court. He can't disband the Electoral College. He can't do anything now he was no authorized to do before. He only has immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. That is not an authorization.
Earlier this evening, at Mary Trump's substack, someone had posted that the Court gave Biden the sorts of authorizations you cite, including the authorization to expand the Supreme Court. I replied:
"Giving the president immunity to commit crimes is not the same as giving him powers that he does not have. To take two of your examples, he does not have the power to remove Alito and Thomas by fiat. If he has them murdered, however, he will be immune from prosecution. He also lacks the power to expand the Court; only Congress can do that. If, however, he threatens to murder any member of Congress who does not vote to expand the Court, he will be immune from prosecution."
I agree with everything you write in this comment, but none of your examples involves the commission of a crime. To grant immunity for the commission of a crime is to implicitly authorize it. We're quibbling about word usage, not substance.
We are in the same page but I really felt the need to point out that there was no explicit authorization of power given to the president by this decision because so many people, for reasons that make sense only to them, think there was. In fact, somebody like you who understands this in my experience so far is in a small minority.
If trmp is reelected, the Project 2025 goes into effect immediately, and chaos will result not to mention fascism. Back to the white landed gentry definitions in the constitution. And do NOT tell me Leonard Leo hasn’t been kept informed.
Then it is up to us to use our voices outside this forum to educate, convince and where necessary coerce to get Biden elected. We must counter the lies of Trump like Democracy won today with the truth that Fascism won today.
I can't be certain that Trump has any interest in enacting Project 2025. His main goal would be to grift as much money as possible out of the government and maybe get some revenge against his enemies. He has no ideological beliefs. He only uses them to attain his goals. He could easily morph back into a pro-choice New York Liberal tomorrow if he thought it would help him keep power. So IMO, the future of Project 2025 is up in the air.
You and so many others today, Lucian. The nicey nice Dems must get down with reality and take off the gloves and DEMAND that POTUS take all necessary steps to save our democracy by taking the power just granted and round up all the congressional insurectionists and those Supremes who lied, under oath at their confirmation hearings, and lock them up. By executive order expand the court and for good measure, lock up the felon ex-president, as a precautionary measure.
Catch my drift?!???
If they don't like it, they can shove it!!!
Perhaps I'm intemperant, but what can you expect after all this.
Listen to me: I don't care what example Sotomayor used in her dissent. I don't care who came up with the Seal Team Six example in the first place. It's not funny to joke around about killing someone, and I will not permit that in these comments. There's plenty of other shit to joke around about. Killing is not one of them. Knock it off.
Thank you, Lucian. We need to be better than that.
Thanks, Lucian. I truly hope we are better than that.
A Coup d'etat by any other name is still a Coup d'etat. And Biden needs to deal with it as such. Or let Kamala if he's not up to it.
But Lucian, surely itʼs within the realm of possibility that at least one Supreme Court justice could die within the next two years? And Trump probably wonʼt live much longer either...
It's horrifying how much damage the Supreme Court has done in just a couple of days.
And how much Leonard Leo has been doing for years.
The best way to take the law into your own hands is to vote.
And the only way…
"Hello? Seal Team Six? Hi. Joe, here. SCOTUS ruled; Operation Orange is a go. Repeat Operation Orange is a go! Good luck and Godspeed."
I so wish this to be true! Operation Orange!
No idea why this was posted twice.
Probably posted twice in case Seal Team didn't hear Joe the first time... "Get 'er done!"
I expect we'll both be getting a visit now.
You'll both be getting a visit from me if you don't stop joking around about killing someone. I mean it.
The SC decision allows Biden to do just that, RIGHT NOW! This is why this decision is the stupidest, most misguided, corrupt, idiotic, unbelievable decision that has been handed down in the last century. Biden could call for the six conservative justices to be "removed." Immune. Immune. Immune. Immune. Immune. Immune.
And you know what, all of us would probably celebrate if this happened.
"I have never wished anyone dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure..." ... or something.
I think the remark is: "I don't wish him dead, but I don't care if he lives either."
I would throw a champagne party for all my neighbors and then some.
I'll be there -- and I'll bring the beer since I'm not big on champagne. <g>
And yet, Trump promises to do just that. We don’t have to like the morals of this decision, but to not utilize the new ground rules, we are unilaterally disarming. Republicans should at least be encouraged to agree or disagree with this reading of the SC ruling. As in, why can’t Biden do just that?
Every MAGA politician and talking head needs to be asked this question directly, every time they are out in public.
Is it not valid to discuss the dissenting opinion of one of the liberal justices, who noted "Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune."
-- https://msmagazine.com/2024/07/01/sonia-sotomayor-dissent-trump-immunity/
You're right, it isn't funny and not only that YOU set the tone on here, LKTIV. So joking around about something that serious is kind of nasty, if understandable. Much as we may all rightfully despise Trump etc. etc. etc.
I think he meant that Biden could do exactly what Trump intends.
Yes. It seems to me that he has a lot of leverage through the end of the year at least. Or am I missing something?
Urgency
???
This IS part of Project 2025.
So was overturning Chevron.
Dismantle the government 1
brick at a time. It's been in
the works for a couple of
years.
I think many more years than we knew . But they had to wait on the right ‘ candidate ‘ who owed Putin and no conscience.
Then so strangely…. Trump just showed up
The people asking for Biden to step down … hmmm they didn’t notice anything ‘off’ about Trump . ?
All I want to know is if this means Joe can bust the big liar and keep him in a supermax till djt is housebroken
Biden obviously would do nothing of the sort. But this decision does take the wind out of Trump's constant harping on Biden "weaponizing" the DOJ, because the court just approved of that. I doubt very much if it's going to stop Trump's harping on it, however. He wouldn't know hypocrisy if it was a 2 by 4 upside his head.
Good point!
Won't the Extreme Court Six be surprised to find themselves in the next cellblock down from the big liar, doing life for stealing the U.S. constitution. [See Richard Knabel's reply to Susanna Sturgis.]
Good one. Touche.
If you mean 'Extreme Court,' that's with a h/t to your subscriber Susan Linehan. Knocked me out.
In my unworthy opinion they have broken their oath to the Constitution and are acting in a treasonous manner.
Look. Put us old ladies into a Democratic Militia. They'll never see us coming. We are invisible to fascist republicans.
I would sign up! If the 60s and 70s seemed politically explosive yesterday just found me with my gray head in my hands.
Until today, I kept hoping one the Court conservatives might pull a Warren or a Blackmon (or a Souter or a Stevens) and come to their senses. I will hope no more. If Joe Biden does nothing else as president, he should push the parameters of this decision to its absolute limit. Just watch how fast all the repubs line up at the Court to demand that the radical right "justices" carve out exceptions that apply only to Democratic presidents. I concur with Justice Sotomayor's dissent.
Expand the court. Impeach Thomas. 🔥☠️
They should definitely indict his wife for her part in Jan 6, that will get his attention. The overall loathesomeness, I know probably not a word but it fits, of so many of them is hard to wrap your mind around. And to have the Chief Justice leading this and writing the decision, WTF 🤬. I used to think he had a brain, not any longer.
The Court essentially adopted the Nixon position, "if the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." The actual opinion is much worse than the headlines, Trump will claim anything he did was an "official act," and the Court held such acts are then presumptively an official act and motive can't be examined. Good luck to anyone ever trying to rebut that presumption, and if by some miracle they did, it would be reversed on appeal. Of course the King still has to be elected so we still have some chance to avoid this horror. And to make it all worse, the NYT headline glossed over it all saying, Trump "granted some immunity,"
Stupid NYT!!!! As for elections, maybe there won't be any more 'elections'!
The decision scares the hell out of me. If Trump is re-elected, now all he has to do is preface a decision by saying "As part of my official duties, I order . . ."
As others have pointed out, it applies to Biden too. So, as part of his official duties he should now call for the arrest or Gosar, Coons, Hawley, MJT, Boebert, Gaetz, and any of the other merry band of insurrectionists who encouraged and participated in Jan 6.
LOCK THEM UP!!
Not exactly. You have to remember there is a difference between being immune from prosecution for criminal acts which is regulated by law and overstepping authority, which is regulated by Congress.
Now, if Trump wins in November, the Supreme Court has authorized Biden to stage a coup. But, if he does, the Court will say that it meant for today’s decision to apply only to Republicans.
Indeed. I'm surprised they didn't sign it "this ticket good for one ride only," as in Bush v. Gore.
The Supreme Court did not authorize Biden or any other president to do anything. It only gave him immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. There is a world of difference between immunity and authority.
As a practical matter, I don't see much difference at all. Would you prefer if I change it to "implicitly authorize"? To tell the president that he will not be prosecuted for breaking the law is to implicitly authorize him or her to break the law.
I could think of 1000s of examples but this is one: Biden signed an executive order forgiving student debt. The Supreme Court overruled him. If he tried to do it again they would overrule him again. He can't expand the Supreme Court. He can't disband the Electoral College. He can't do anything now he was no authorized to do before. He only has immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. That is not an authorization.
Earlier this evening, at Mary Trump's substack, someone had posted that the Court gave Biden the sorts of authorizations you cite, including the authorization to expand the Supreme Court. I replied:
"Giving the president immunity to commit crimes is not the same as giving him powers that he does not have. To take two of your examples, he does not have the power to remove Alito and Thomas by fiat. If he has them murdered, however, he will be immune from prosecution. He also lacks the power to expand the Court; only Congress can do that. If, however, he threatens to murder any member of Congress who does not vote to expand the Court, he will be immune from prosecution."
I agree with everything you write in this comment, but none of your examples involves the commission of a crime. To grant immunity for the commission of a crime is to implicitly authorize it. We're quibbling about word usage, not substance.
We are in the same page but I really felt the need to point out that there was no explicit authorization of power given to the president by this decision because so many people, for reasons that make sense only to them, think there was. In fact, somebody like you who understands this in my experience so far is in a small minority.
I’m sorry, but has the entire country lost its f’ing mind.
Yes, it sure has, the Robes of these six are now red with a large M emblem.
Silly of us to have wondered why Robert’s wasn’t slightest interested in enforcing ethics rules!
Robert’s will now be forever linked to Roger B Taney as the worst Chief Justices in our history!
If trmp is reelected, the Project 2025 goes into effect immediately, and chaos will result not to mention fascism. Back to the white landed gentry definitions in the constitution. And do NOT tell me Leonard Leo hasn’t been kept informed.
Project 2025 sounds the R/con version The Year 2525 only different.
Wimmin and POC votes will count as 3/5ths that of a white male.
We the People will include an asterisk of not the others.
Out of many, one will be replaced by there is only one-MAGA.
Trump Bible will be the Law of the Land and the US Constitution a fairly tale.
-
Then it is up to us to use our voices outside this forum to educate, convince and where necessary coerce to get Biden elected. We must counter the lies of Trump like Democracy won today with the truth that Fascism won today.
I can't be certain that Trump has any interest in enacting Project 2025. His main goal would be to grift as much money as possible out of the government and maybe get some revenge against his enemies. He has no ideological beliefs. He only uses them to attain his goals. He could easily morph back into a pro-choice New York Liberal tomorrow if he thought it would help him keep power. So IMO, the future of Project 2025 is up in the air.
You and so many others today, Lucian. The nicey nice Dems must get down with reality and take off the gloves and DEMAND that POTUS take all necessary steps to save our democracy by taking the power just granted and round up all the congressional insurectionists and those Supremes who lied, under oath at their confirmation hearings, and lock them up. By executive order expand the court and for good measure, lock up the felon ex-president, as a precautionary measure.
Catch my drift?!???
If they don't like it, they can shove it!!!
Perhaps I'm intemperant, but what can you expect after all this.
Interesting…maybe we have arrived at that desperate time when me do desperate things.
Don’t go Neanderthal on us!
We’re going forward, not backward.
Look where going forward has got us!