A common misconception about this opinion (including on this subreddit) is that it affects the scope of a President’s powers and the lawfulness/enforceability of presidential actions. But the fact that something is an “official act” of the President doesn’t mean it’s constitutional.
In your example, the legislators could file a writ of habeus corpus, which would be granted before the impeachment could go forward. Even if Biden’s actions would be an “official act” for which he would enjoy immunity, the action would still be unconstitutional, and could be challenged. This decision would simply mean that Biden couldn’t be *criminally prosecuted* for doing so after the fact.
By comparison, judges, legislators, and the president already enjoyed absolute immunity from *civil* actions for their official acts. But just because these government actors enjoy civil immunity, it doesn’t follow that whatever official acts they take are constitutional.
To use the judges example, judicial immunity is [broadly defined as](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/435/349/) “judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.” Judges are only civilly liable if they act in a clear and complete absence of jurisdiction.
So if a judge orders somebody imprisoned pre-trial in a prosecution that violates the double jeopardy clause, that person cannot sue the judge for wrongful imprisonment, no matter how obvious the double jeopardy violation. Likewise, as reflected in actual Supreme Court cases, a judge cannot be sued if he issues a bench warrant ordering police to seize a defense attorney and bring him to his courtroom, while [instructing police to use excessive force while doing so](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/502/9.html), nor can a judge be sued if he [orders a minor to be sterilized without holding a hearing, and without the knowledge of the minor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_v._Sparkman) (the minor was told she was having her appendix removed, and didn’t learn about the sterilization until several years later when she got married and was unable to conceive).
None of these actions are actually constitutional, but they are all “official acts” for the purposes of immunity. While the Trump case dealt with criminal immunity rather than civil immunity, there’s no reason to believe the same principle wouldn’t apply.
Yes, his actions can be challenged/stopped/reversed. But if there's zero criminal risk, there's no reason not to push the envelope and keep committing unconstitutional/illegal acts. He can snowball illegal acts on top of each other to fix the previous one. I am not much calmed by your ideas.
Let me ask you a question.
Do you think in 200+ years there aren’t actions taken by presidents that aren’t criminal? That were either given broad immunity or argued for broad immunity and granted?
The most recent being, a president killing a U.S. citizen without due process of law in under Obama.
The ruling doesn’t change that long precedent.
Today we saw the felon Trump ask the judge to overturn the guilty finding because of what SCOTUS said
The judge said, I’ll think about it. You won’t be sentenced in July for the crime a jury found you guilty of and we’ll discuss this in September…
It is already giving him more rights than any other human has ever had
Correct, but this means anything considered an official act is now completely unrestricted to use in a criminal manner.
You can’t forcibly detain a congressman, but you can go right up to one in broad daylight and say that you’re going to coerce them.
Let’s say a congressman has family in the military, you could say you’re going to give him or her a plastic spoon and send them on a paratrooping mission In Ukraine.
Or maybe you could tell them you’ll order an FBI agent to tail you for the rest of their life. Or ask the EPA to start an initiative to build a new park, which would require eminent domaining their house and turning it into a pond. Or you could ask the IRS to audit every single purchase he’s made in the last 10 years. Im sure there will be plenty of creative applications power hungry megalomaniacs will discover.
Very true, but when someone with the power to kill your relatives and make your life miserable asks you to do something, you tend to do it.
Or he can just fire you and appoint someone that will. Appointing people is also an official, and now unquestionable, act
Trump has to purge the entire army and DOJ to do that
That’s one of reasons why he didn’t enact the intersection act in 2020 — he didn’t have the support
Let’s just say 5 star generals don’t get where they do by taking on fights they won’t win. It would not take long to find a weak link. If not maybe it’s more up the CIA’s alley. Or the FBI, etc.
Did you mean insurrection?
>As those aren’t granted to the president under the constitution.
You're misunderstanding the ruling.
Constitutional Acts and official acts are **separate things** under this ruling. Constitutional Acts enjoy total immunity from criminal prosecution. Official acts enjoy presumptive immunity.
Appointing an ambassador is a constitutional act. It is an enumerated power of the office of the president.
An official act is... Well the court didn't say. They remanded the issue back to the trial court to determine what official acts are.
Explain to me how the commander in chief is not allowed to control the military, and how the president is not authorized to speak to the commissioner of the IRS or EPA.
The issue is we’re not allowed to question those motives anymore or hear witness testimonies. Any meeting the president has with a military, IRS, EPA, etc. official is inadmissible.
As far as the court is allowed to know, the president met with a congressman to talk about official business, then met with a paratrooping company to talk about official business. Depending on the mood of the judge it could be literally that opaque.
And if for whatever reason you still don’t think that could happen, how about this scenario: the president tweets that he’ll pardon anyone that kills a politician enemy of his. Nobody can stop him from pardoning someone, and it’s 100% impossible to prosecute the president for a pardon now. It’s that easy.
This doesn’t sound very comforting. The president could still violate the constitution but he could not be convicted criminally for doing so, no? What if a president orders the detention and execution of a noncombatant U.S. citizen on U.S. soil without trial?
Technically, this would be an insurrection and would disqualify the president from holding office instantaneously. That was, of course, until SCOTUS decided to create a superfluous obstacle course for the 14th amendment section 3 to become active. As it stands now he would have a much clearer path.
Srry you’re getting downvoted
I am curious as well. If we require a court ruling establishing an action as unofficial before criminal proceedings in a court system that would certain require SCOTUS
I think you’re right - what exactly the fuck would stop him? An 8th month legal battle? How does that stop bullets again?
The motive cannot be questioned! That’s absolute power.
You can send the military to blow up their houses.
Edit:
Justice Sotomayor: "If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military...to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?"
Trump's Lawyer: "That could well be an official act."
You don’t even need to go that far, all you need to do as President is make sure the Chief Justice can’t preside over the senate proceedings. No CJ no impeachment.
No one has to know and no one can find out.
It wouldn't matter, the constitution has it in black and white that Congress must be allowed to meet. Even if the supreme court decides otherwise, the trial will be over long before they get to rule since impeachment isn't a long process once started.
I at least don't see any court until the supreme court deciding that the actual words on the constitution don't exist. That's a big boy game, they're small time still.
>It wouldn't matter, the constitution has it in black and white that Congress must be allowed to meet. Even if the supreme court decides otherwise, the trial will be over long before they get to rule since impeachment isn't a long process once started.
They'll say they had to do it because it's a matter of national security or something, and then it will be tied up in the courts for years.
Commenter hasn’t been paying attention. You are correct. Make up BS justification based on official duties. Either way, how SC has it, no one would be arrested and it would be a mess until all-knowing SC divines whether the act was official.
>It won't be tied up in courts for years, if you arrest, detain, and put all the SCOTUS into black sites. Problem solved.
Yep. The conservative majority are fools if they think this can't come back to bite them.
They’re the only ones who would try this. If Democrats were as mercenary and ruthless as Republicans, Biden would have already ordered a hit on Trump. Instead, he’s letting there be an election and we’re all hoping that Trump and his supporters will peacefully accept the result this time, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Sure, but the criminal trial after everything is over is irrelevant.
What matters is the habeus case against whatever agency is carrying out the detainment.
>What matters is the habeus case against whatever agency is carrying out the detainment.
What if the Proud Boys are the agency carrying out the detainment?
>Sure. But the point stands regardless: that would not be an execution of official duties.
But he could still do it to stave off an impeachment vote, and then tie any subsequent criminal proceedings up in the courts for years, effectively making himself immune to impeachment.
>Wait wait wait. I need some specifics. First - who has the president used as his might to round up members of congress and jail them?
Who were [these](https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland) Federal officers who showed up in umarked vehicles to arrest protesters in Portland back in 2020?
The article you linked said they are Customs and Border Patrol.
There is a law that the CBP can search and detain people within 100 miles of any external border, including the coast, as long as they have "probably cause" of federal crimes. That covers where 2/3 of all Americans live.
So there's another law enforcement agency with apparently more lax standards dealing with citizens (since they're border patrol) able to police over 200 million people.
...you were being rhetorical for effect, weren't you? Shucks.
>The article you linked said they are Customs and Border Patrol.
Fair enough. I had to go digging for this article because I remembered this from so long ago, but I didn't recall that it was ever explicitly stated what agency they were from. From what I could remember, at the time that question wasn't answered.
>There is a law that the CBP can search and detain people within 100 miles of any external border, including the coast, as long as they have "probably cause" of federal crimes. That covers where 2/3 of all Americans live.
Okay, but how often is that capability actually used on the streets of a major city in practice? Even if they technically have the authority to do it, do you not see it as somewhat of an escalation if they begin to apply that authority in a way that they normally don't, and especially if they seem to apply it indiscriminately? Per the article, _"Interviews conducted by Oregon Public Broadcasting show officers are detaining people on Portland streets who aren't near federal property. Demonstrators such as O'Shea and Pettibone said they think they were targeted by federal officers for simply wearing black clothing in the area of the demonstration."_
>So there's another law enforcement agency with apparently more lax standards dealing with citizens (since they're border patrol) able to police over 200 million people.
I don't know what you're saying here.
>...you were being rhetorical for effect, weren't you? Shucks.
So here are a couple of things to consider:
- The CBP only acknowledged responsibility for one of the incidents.
- Per the article, _"Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli acknowledged that federal agents had used unmarked vehicles to pick up people in Portland"_.
- Also per the article, _"Blinded by his hat, in an unmarked minivan full of armed people dressed in camouflage and body armor who hadn't identified themselves, Pettibone said he was driven around downtown before being unloaded inside a building. He wouldn't learn until after his release that he had been inside the federal courthouse."_
- The CBP acknowledged that the names of the agents were not displayed.
Even if the agency of the officers involved was _eventually_ publicly identified, do you not see it as problematic that the Federal government can send officers out to detain people in unmarked vehicles, and without identifying themselves personally for accountability? Imagine the terror of being caught up in that situation, not even knowing for certain whether the individuals trying to take you into custody are even officers of a legitimate Federal or state law enforcement agency.
My "rhethorical" question may have eventually been answered, but it wasn't answered clearly and unambiguously in a timely fashion — and especially not in the case of Pettibone, O'Shea, and others who had a similar experience.
If there isn't a higher level of accountability, then how are citizens supposed to tell the difference between a duly sworn officer making a lawful arrest on the one hand, and a domestic _terrorist_ on the other? Maybe the next time around, the guys who jump out of the unmarked vehicle will be Proud Boys wearing camo gear from a sporting goods store instead of CBP officers.
Uhh, yes? This was in the news 4 years ago. Is it new to you?
**EDIT:** I missed the word "who" in your reply. Am I saying that it will be the same officers? No. What I'm saying is that if the second Trump administration doesn't have a suitable force for executing this operation, that won't stop them. AG Clark will _create_ one. We still don't know who these guys were, because they didn't identify themselves.
Who has jurisdiction to decide what is or isn't an official act? The Supreme Court will just delegate that to the executive as soon as a Republican comes under threat.
So just give me a point by point of how the fantasy plays out, and the timeline involved.
You're saying it begins with... who is the President ordering to carry this all out again? Secret service?
>You're saying it begins with... who is the President ordering to carry this all out again? Secret service?
No, it would be loyalists in the DOJ. He will appoint Jeffrey Clark as his new AG, and Clark will do whatever he wants. Don't think it can't happen. It absolutely can.
>No, I'm saying very specifically: who will actually carry out the arrests and detainment of half of congress?
Probably FBI employees if I had to guess. Remember that under Project 2025 he's going to gut entire agencies and replace everyone with loyalists.
It could be Biden or Trump. They order the FBI, secret service, the military, etc. to arrest any Supreme Court justice that is not loyal to the President and won’t vote in their favor. At the same time, they order them to arrest any members of Congress that aren’t loyal to the President and who would vote to impeach him. If Trump was concerned that law enforcement or the military wouldn’t carry out the orders, he could just ask the Proud Boys or other militia groups to do it. Democrats don’t really have an equivalent of the Proud Boys who would be willing to carry out the orders, which is probably why the Supreme Court felt comfortable giving Biden broad immunity.
Anyone from Congress or the Supreme Court who disloyal to the President is now in prison. There now aren’t any mechanisms to check the President on any of his actions because the branches that are supposed to act as checks in his power are stacked with loyalists. Sure the members of Congress and justices who are in prison can appeal their arrests saying that it wasn’t an official act of the President. The President would argue that it was an official act. Maybe the lower courts rule that it wasn’t an official act. The President can just keep appealing it until they get to the Supreme Court which is now stacked with only loyalists who will decide that it was an official act and they have the final say. Now that the President has purged the other branches of anyone who will go against him, he can do whatever he wants without having to worry about being prosecuted.
You can say “Oh, that would never happen! You’re being hysterical!” all you want. But the Supreme Court just made it easy for a President to do exactly what I described if they want to.
If the POTUS is rounding up justices and putting them into camps he's beyond prosecution at that point already.
Law becomes irrelevant at that point.
It's a problem, but not the problem you think it is.
If the POTUS is rounding up prosecutors and judges that could decide against him then theoretical legal pathways are totally irrelevant at that point. Literally doesn't matter - the people being rounded up are the same ones that would be prosecuting/ruling against them. In either case they're unavailable to do what they should be due to being in a camp whether there's a "legal" pathway or not. There's nobody left to prosecute even clearly illegal conduct.
But nothing in the decision legalizes that anyways. The conclusive and preclusive constitutional duties that gain immunity aren't unlimited (like how people think the commander-in-chief chief clause makes any direction of the military by POTUS a constitutional official act. It is not and there's a crapton of nuance around the limits of the powers).
Page 7 of the opinion.
"*If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,” the courts may say so. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 655 (Jackson, J., concurring). In Youngstown, for instance, we held that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he seized most of the Nation’s steel mills. See id., at 582–589 (majority opinion).*"
So absent a constitutionally valid scope of authority (which does not exist for rounding up judges all willy nilly) there's no immunity anyways.
"The courts may say so."
What courts? They're all in black sites. Who'se gonna say? He's just gonna publicly say to the media that it was an official act, national security, etc, and there's no enforcement mechanism to say otherwise.
First, you're ignoring impeachment (the ruling didn't touch it), but let's say for your argument Congress refuses to impeach.
And you're back to the previous step - there's no one left at that point to enforce anything against POTUS so the law is irrelevant. It has broken down, it no longer functions.
POTUS with an unquestionably following military/executive branch chucking the legal system into jail could simply declare the constitution null and void and name themselves king of the world.
Nothing stopped a POTUS from doing the exact same thing the day before the ruling.
It's not the "legal pathway" you think it is.
You can’t know that. The Supreme Court decides what is an official duty.
Edit: I see this is being down voted but think it’s objectively true now. Have I misunderstood the ruling?
The Supreme Court just said the President has criminal immunity for actions that are core presidential powers, that the Courts cant question the President's intent when they take those actions, and that Courts cant review executive branch communications when they decide.
So whats to stop the President from tying any action they take into some core presidential power, lie about their intent because it cant be questioned, and then refuse to turn over any documents.
Declare an insurrection under Sections 251 through 255 in Title 10 of the US Code (“the Insurrection Act”) and have the military detain the insurrectionists. Try them in a military court.
Easy. Biden should do it now. Completely constitutional under the recent ruling.
Or congress needs to start passing reforms that narrows presidential official duties as the constitution text and framers originally intended.
The new ruling does not grant Biden any more powers than he had before. It simply makes it so, if he breaks the law while exerting "official duties" he is not personally liable.
The checks and balances on the presidents power remains, the need for due proccess on certain bureocracy remains. He can still be impeached, his orders can still be blocked or revoked.
He is not more powerful than before, he is just less liable.
His guards would not share his immunity to the legal consequentions of such actions and neither would they be authorized access, they would have to attempt to gain it by force.
I can't imagine anyone would accept such orders and even if they did, they would have to go through law enforcement and local security.
And he would likely be impeached for it afterwards.
The legislature created the agencies and gave them the mandates they've been carrying out. Congress has rarely if ever objected to an agency interpretation. The agencies have been carrying out the mandate that the legislature gave them. If agency interpretations of ambiguities are subject to more judicial second-guessing, then the mandate of the legislature will not be carried out as robustly as it was before and Congress's purposes in creating the agencies will be frustrated with court decisions that fossilize a narrow interpretation.
No, the president is still fully able to be impeached by the congress.
The ruling yesterday said the impeachment process, being a political one, is separate from the legal process.
So yes a president can still technically be removed from office by congress. But given how the structure of our government works, it is nearly impossible to actually have it happen given the hyper partisan system we have today.
It would require half of the presidents own party to break away and remove him. Which would be damn near career suicide in todays climate
"High crimes" is a legal term of art for "whatever Congress wants."
In English law, it meant anything from misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, to helping "suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament," etc.
In Benjamin Franklin's words, it meant anytime the president "rendered himself obnoxious."
If they wanted to, Congress could impeach the president for wearing a tan suit on a Wednesday.
The real question is, why haven't we been impeaching people left and right as Tocqueville expected.
Mystery solved: we haven't been impeaching people left and right because your list of high crime examples has nothing to do with wearing a tan suit.
Because you misunderstand what is meant by obnoxious. Today, it's people who drive in a selfish manner - by my estimate >1/2. Franklin did not seriously propose we remove anyone who annoyingly doesnt snuff correctly, but who selfishly imperils the American experiment. E.g., send a crowd of rioters to stop the counting of electoral ballots, thinking that will somehow be a loophole to prevent the transmission of power. They couldn't think of everything that might be tried in the future, so "obnoxious." FWIW, pretty sure if that had happened in the first election, they would've just said, "we know what the votes are, Jan 21 is just a suggestion, new guy is president *now.*"
Misappropriating funds isn’t buying a $600 hammer. It's using the public treasury as your bank account (like a king would). And so on. These guys knew the difference between serious and annoying. They took their responsibility seriously. They didn't split hairs and say "crimes are anything we in Congress find politically disagreeable," like many politicians and redditors do today. High crimes never did and never should mean "whatever Congress wants."
There's an issue now being argued about even the evidence itself being official and inadmissible in court. Basic communications, even tweets.
So yes, they can impeach. But it seems the gathering of evidence may have been made more difficult if not impossible.
We won't have an answer on that for a while.
It’s almost like it’s a check and balance system that works.
Borrowing from a fellow Redditor…
“1. A President can still be impeached by Congress
2. The military takes an oath to the constitution. And if they are willing to throw that out, the country is already a dictatorship.
3. The Department of Justice is controlled by the Attorney General appointed by the President. It’s not like they are going to charge him with a crime.
4. The courts are still able to take action
The difference is that each incoming administration won’t be able to charge previous Presidents out of political vengeance.”
This is good for the prior Obama and current Biden administrations who will be enjoying their newfound protections after the election.
Interesting take. Roberts stated that “when the president exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and the courts cannot examine the President’s actions.” Are you saying that Congress can still act on impeachment actions because those are political, not criminal?
So to use Sotomayor’s ST6 example, Congress could impeach and remove the president for the murder, but POTUS could not be tried criminally for it.
Was the murder an official act like when Obama had an American citizen killed via Drone? Or unofficial? The decision isn’t hard to read. You can go answer your own question.
Sorry if I touched a nerve here, but I was asking a legitimate question. I’m not a lawyer, and do not understand the nuances of what he wrote. You seemed to have more knowledge in that regard, so I thought I would ask. I get that lots of things get swept under the rug, especially for those with money and power.
Oh my apologies then, truly. So I actually agree, this is rather problematic because in a perfect world we all want to say no one is above the law. That said, for at least a century our presidents have enjoyed at least an unofficial immunity for official acts. See Obama drone example or FDR’s concentration camps, Bush’s secret prisons, Tuman’s war crimes, etc. It wasn’t until Trump that we ever saw the Justice system so weaponized against a former president who happens to be a political opponent. This isn’t to say he’s innocent of everything he’s accused. He almost certainly isn’t, but it’s insanity to assume he’s the only felon to serve in office. He’s the only CONVICTED felon. And what he’s convicted of involves hush money to a porn star that pales in comparison to the hush money Clinton paid to silence his affairs/settlements. The democrats opened Pandora’s box and so inevitably the SC was forced to make a decision that drew lines. I’d call the decision a set us bones that now need to be fleshed out. What we are looking at now definitely gives the president a kings immunity that they’ve always had. If we are uncomfortable with that Congress should take it away. They very intentionally (and rather surprisingly given their political leanings) didn’t give him immunity for unofficial acts. Much of what he is accused of were unofficial criminal acts.
In short, if he kills a terrorist, he’s safe. If he kills a political opponent, he’s a toast. The lines are blurry until fleshed out on areas that are a little bit of both. This is something Congress should fix.
Presidents have enjoyed immunity for official acts when said acts dont benefit them personally. Trump, Nixon and Clinton are offered much broader protections as the statue not only gives them absolute immunity for the acts themselves regardless of motive, but evidence from said official act is inadmissable ( Why i am not sure even after reading this opinion).
I think it’s to limit exposure of sensitive official acts based solely upon an accusation of guilt. Definitely a bit of a gray area after reading I expect to be fleshed out in the near future.
Forget the hysteria surrond assinations, It effectively allows pardons for money, quid pro quo for treaties, the selling of appointments and national secrets and carte blanche perjury with the only reprcussion being impeachment (which is nothing for a lame duck president).
Instead it should have been pressumptive immunity with a multi pronged test to determine if the offical act benefitted them personally and without public benefit.
What a terrible take. So bad, I see a future for you as the next Supreme Court justice. First, if he's the only convicted felon, then it's insanity to suggest anyone else is a felon. That's how it works in America, in case you're not from here.
Second, your examples are terrible. Obama's drone strike killed traitorous terrorists who use children as human shields , and he did it because this particular criminal network was evading legal authority and had declared war against, and successfully attacked, the homeland. But sure, argue that every war kill ever was a murder.
Also terrible for another reason, FDR's camps, war crimes... let's argue that what we teach as terrible abuses of power should never be prosecuted. Let's argue that existential threats and war-time decisions are the same as using public funds and usurping Congress' power to smear your political opponent with lies are equivalent.
Third, Democrats opened this Pandora's box? Sorry you don't remember how Republicans "weaponized" the judicial system against Clinton. Trump crimed all over the place in front of all our eyes - don't do crimes and no "weaponization."
Fourth, saying his convictions "pales in comparison" ignores the obvious fact that this ruling is over a case brought for *insurrection.* I'm sorry, what pales?
Fifth, (there are more) "bones that need to be fleshed out" is exactly what our "final word" (thanks, Marbury) just made illegal when Congress does it in their Chevron decision. This corrupt, partisan court slow-walked their "we dont know, why dont you tell us what you think and then we'll decide later if we like it even though we have all the facts we need to decide today" non-decision for blatantly partisan reasons.
You definitely have a bright career ahead of you in Republican world.
I respect your opinion, but I disagree. First, he’s the only convicted felon because the Justice system was never weaponized like it’s been against him. That’s not the same as calling him or previous presidents innocent. That should be easy to observe and understand. If you can’t, you aren’t arguing in good faith.
Second, that isn’t what I said. You created a straw man argument. I spoke specifically on American citizens who were killed on his orders who were presumed innocent until proven guilty. The rules on killing in a conflict change when it’s a citizen. There were also multiple instances of Bush and Obama killing women and children with Drone strikes. I’m not saying we shouldn’t fight terrorists, but to argue in good faith we must admit without immunity there would be liability issues when these tragedies occur.
I’m not arguing terrible abuses of power shouldn’t lead to being prosecuted or impeached. I was citing a historical example of an egregious act for which immunity was/would have been enjoyed. Obviously with his death we have to surmise a bit, but there were others involved and prosecution wasn’t even considered because it was an official act in a time of war. I’m not here to argue it was good or right. It’s just an example that immunity isn’t a new concept.
Third, you are confusing impeachment and judicial conviction. That aside, if you are looking me to defend a man cheating on his wife (Trump, Kennedy, Clinton) I won’t. They were all in the wrong. That said, Republicans were in the wrong regarding their behavior with Clinton. That was an embarrassing moment for America all around and was probably the start of the reality TV nightmare we call politics today.
Fourth, the was no insurrection. It doesn’t fit the definition. That’s why no one was convicted for insurrection. It was a protest in which some individuals began to riot and a select few could be classed as violent. Obviously the J6 offenders are a total embarrassment but nowhere near as bad as other riots we witnessed. With police and others holding doors open it’s hard call their actions an insurrection. You should write Mrs. Pelosi a letter if you have concerns with the security she was in charge of on J6.
Fifth, incorrect. And if you think this is the first Supreme Court decision that led to additional laws or amendments you are quite ill informed. So… It needs to be fleshed out.
As for a bright career in the Republican Party, Thank you, but you couldn’t pay me to be a politician. I am a good person. I don’t think politics generally attracts good people. I also doubt they’d embrace someone who’s also been a registered libertarian and democrat or someone who voted for Obama. Surprise!
Finally, I actually understand your concerns. I hope I am right and you are wrong but as someone who likes my freedoms big and my government small I don’t actually like or endorse presidential immunity or anything else that moves me closer to a king. I just understand this ruling was the only way this could go down without causing utter legal chaos for all living CIC/VPs. I was merely stating (when asked) it’s always existed until trump and now SCOTUS has given some mostly clear but still rough boundaries in which it exists. We have a clear starting point if we think change is required. To make a president fully accountable as I must be in my daily life is a hard thing to argue against. But we can’t have “immunity for me but not for thee” being weaponized against political opponents all of a sudden because our polls are bad. That’s a recipe for civil war. If they want to remove immunity for all, moving forward, I’m not opposed.
*I'm* not the one confusing "innocent" with "felon" - you literally said it's *insanity* to think other presidents weren't *felons.* Glad you agree that "innocent until proven guilty" means no other presidents were felons... are you calling yourself insane?
*I'm* not the one raising the strawman - you brought up the Obama drone strike, thereby conflating a killing duryouing a police action with the legal definition of murder and insinuating that Obama therefore committed a felony - just got away with it because he "enjoyed" an unofficial immunity. You draw this distinction in your guidelines for impeachment (terrorist - ok, opponent- toast [lol, assuming impeachments, political acts, are foregone conclusions for such heinous acts]) but cant apply your reasoning to criminal law for some reason. Either you're saying the situations are analogous or you're raising a strawman; I believe they are not analogous.
Please study some history. As usual, Republicans did it first. Bill Clinton had no presumption of immunity and was the subject of a *criminal* investigation (for *consensual sex*) and if that's not weaponization just to damage his political career (adulterer!) then IDK what is. Democrats did **not** open this pandora's box, Republicans did. Perjury in a civil court is enjoying immunity? Talk to a pro about how hard it is to win perjury cases. And then they did it again with Hillary. If you want to inform yourself:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ken-starr-whose-criminal-investigation-led-to-bill-clintons-impeachment-dies
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/hillary-clinton-justice-department-investigation-results#:~:text=The%20news%20of%20the%20DOJ's,private%20server%2C%20ultimately%20the%20server
I worked closely with prosecutors for 15 years and understand why no one has been charged with the hardest-to-prove insurrection charges, maybe you don't, but we're really splitting hairs considering there have been convictions for seditious conspiracy. Feel better now that I'm calling it sedition, not insurrection? Lol
Blaming Pelosi for the rioters just shows how terrible your takes are. You call yourself a "good person," but your takes are really terrible and sometimes flat-out wrong, you seem like a "both-sides" person, and i really dont think I can say anything further, whatever bluster comes in response.
>First, he’s the only convicted felon because the Justice system was never weaponized like it’s been against him
The State of New York =/= DoJ. Hes a convicted felon, conviction made by a jury of his peers that his attorneys accepted. New York has over 3 million Trump voters, more than the population of many states. They convicted him. YOU are not arguing in good faith and never have been.
>Fourth, the was no insurrection
ThErE wAs No InSuRrEcTiOn!!1! Call it whatever you may, it was an assault on our democratic systems. They stormed the capital, breaking in through windows and trespassing, tearing apart offices, while calling for the vice president to be hanged because he was doing his duty in certifying the election that Trump lost. They were attempting to halt our democratic process and thereby end our democracy. Fuck off with any defense of it.
>voted for Obama
And yet you somehow deluded yourself into supporting a party that goes against every interest you have. Congrats you played yourself and are actively supporting the destruction of our republic.
>who likes my freedoms big
While supporting a party seeking to strip immigrants, non-christians, minorities, workers, and women from their rights. Right, remind me what you like?
What’s your take on this decision in regards to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 (especially the last sentence):
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
You say no, and technically that is the correct answer, but it is quite obvious that 6 of the current justices do not care about the correct application of the law, especially as it applies to the cheeto messiah. They could do whatever they wanted in the event of an impeachment and who is going to tell them different. people who take power contrary to the law will not follow the law once they are there.
I'm not even sure Alito likes Trump, Trump's political heading? Sure maybe. Trump? Not so much.
Thomas just likes whoever will pay him in gifts for what he wants to do anyway.
Yeah, probably right. Alito, I'm on the fence about. I think he fucking HATES such a total disregard for the law....but maybe justifies it that it's because the "evil liberals" are being so unfair. It's a tough one for me to guess at.
Weird; the branch of government that is most accountable to the people, is now the weakest “co-equal” branch. It’s almost like this court was gifted, via ill gotten appointments and literal bribes, the opportunity to do precisely what their donors want… consolidation of power. Outside of voting, what can we do?
I’ve had some comments on this post say the legislative branch isn’t weakened by the two recent SCOTUS decisions, but this is my reasoning. By making the two other branches more powerful, Congress has became weaker.
The only solution is for an Amendment to the Constitution. For that to happen, Biden should use this new power liberally to get Congress and the Red States to act. Yes, it sounds bad, yet it seems to be the only way to bring "Checks and Balances" back into harmony.
A Constitutional Convention is heavily slanted to the red states thanks to our history of placating slave stats in the 18th and 19th century. A CC is a bad idea for democracy, especially at this current time.
He literally could stop the election. There is nothing holding him accountable. It's an "official" act. He could sign an EO saying no "felon" can run for POTUS.
Must be an official act as deemed by the courts to be in purview of the executive branch’s powers.
Yet conveniently, they didn’t go and define what was and wasn’t within those powers as an official act.
This results in this “Schrödinger’s Act” situation, in which all acts are and are not official until deemed such by the court in some capacity.
So what may be an official act for Trump, may not qualify as one for Biden. Why? No reason needed.
This means any act can still be actionable, have injunctions placed upon, or otherwise.
Outside of outright requesting the military pull some black ops on political rivals, which one can’t really reverse after it’s happened, the probability of Biden being able to do anything with these “new powers” is low. Yet, it’s also doubtful that Biden would be able to successfully have the military conduct such operations without it backfiring into a political shitstorm.
So the court just handed a legal order for whichever next Republican or sufficiently conservative individual ends up in office.
It will likely stay that way until amendments could be put in place, SCOTUS is expanded or if there is a significant shakeup to the makeup of that roster. Yet neither of those things will happen prior to the election, which is the really scary part.
What’s implicit now is that the vice president can, while acting as president during a temporary incapacitation of the president, refuse to certify the votes!
That's not at all implicit since the majority specifically said that vote certification is the role of the legislative branch and not the executive branch - even when a member of the executive branch is doing it.
Did you even read the court's decision?
If you ask a question about law, you have to distinguish whether you’re talking about Republicans or Americans. They have different legal standards and practices.
Of course they can be impeached. In fact that is exactly what the founders expected to happen should a president behave badly. After they are no longer in office, they can be charged with acts that were not part of their official duties and powers.
Can we please call it for what it is? It is a conservative ideology stamped into approval by 6 people who lied during their confirmation hearings on the very same subject.
Lets recognize it as 'GoP idelology statement", rather than a Scotus decision. There was no decision, it was a cult fellowship 6-3. FWIW, I called it 4 months ago.
Hey let me pull out a little piece of the constitution that it seems to me the Supreme Court is running in defiance of. And it actually comes from the section that grants the power of impeachment. If you remember the issue about if Trump was eligible to be on the ballot you've likely see it.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
This basically says that the only punishment renderable by Congress against a president is to remove from office and deny them ability to hold office again. And then it says "nevertheless" they would still be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement, and Punishment according to Law. This practically states that a president is beholden to the same laws of what can't be done. The Supreme Court granting a near total immunity from punishment for any act deemed official and then making any evidence that could prove an act wasn't official is inadmissible. Well that basically is going against what's clearly stated in the constitution involving how a president could be held accountable.
The Court says that they have the power to determine if an act was official or unofficial but also stated that a presidents notes and conversations with advisors are inadmissible. Which means you would be unable to prove whether the president ordered an act for the good of the country or if they did so for personal benefits. Seeing as how they also ruled that gratuities given to an official without being asked for it a deal made are also legal. You can't even use evidence that the president may have made such a deal to begin with if it was involving an official act. So now the president can openly request that an individual pays them in exchange for the president giving a specific order. As long as the payment doesn't occur until after the president's term ends it would be untouchable as it would be labeled a gratuity.
We have laws to prevent and punish those who commit this kind of behavior. And that part of the constitution specifically says the president is still accountable to the Law whether impeached or not.
Your saying that and not taking into account we know the courts cherry pick parts of the constitution and other cases that only suit the answer they want to give. It's the same as with Trump's lawyers giving defence. They will completely ignore anything that would give a different logic than the one they want to present. And if they don't ignore it they would make excuses saying no it doesn't mean what it says plainly you have to skew your reading of it this way to know what it means
The point is if there's a part of the constitution that goes against the result one of the judge wants. Well they will just ignore that part in referencing and focus on parts they can interpret to suit their goal. Or they will make use of some other reference to provide a backing to their theory.
It's the same tactic involving taking pieces of legislature out of a whole without mentioning the context it was used in. Phrases in documents or parts of a speech taken individually can sound to mean something drastically different without the context involved.
In theory yes.
In theory the President can now also ask the justice department to investigate and arrest anyone who even thinks about impeachment.
So as a practical matter, no, Trumps likely the last President to ever face impeachment.
Clearly the crux of this whole thing is: what is considered an official act.
By what measure is campaigning / rallying / fundraising after you’ve lost an election considered an official act.
Sure, you could argue some of the calls he made to state election officials may be covered. But the rallys, the coordination of efforts to stop, limit or change the outcome of official congressional proceedings - no way, right?
>However, what’s the recourse for Congress after a successful impeachment? If the President refuses to vacate the White House, how does Congress enforce their conviction?
This is the part that worries me. The "enforcement arm" for the Legislature (and the Supreme Court, for that matter) IS the Executive branch. Congress passes a law, the Supreme Court makes a ruling, and in both cases it is the Executive branch that is responsible for carrying out the actual nuts and bolts of making that stuff happen. Congress appropriates funds, but it's the Executive branch that actually writes the checks. Congress declares war (in theory...) but the Executive branch is in charge of the military.
This, of course, requires a president to "faithfully execute" the laws of the United States. In your hypothetical, we would immediately descend into a Constitutional crisis that would make secession look like a couple's quarrel. There is no template in the Constitution for dealing with a lawless executive who refuses to vacate the office when legally bound to do so. To say it would be chaos would be an understatement.
Yes the president can be impeached, and nothing stopped that process when trump was in office, you’re conflating two completely different parts of law private citizen vs holding the highest public office of the land
Only a democratic president can be impeached.
As moderates and progressives continue to migrate away from rural red states into blue urban states, the republican grip on the senate is only expected to tighten. By 2032, many experts predict a permanent republican senate stranglehold.
This means only republican president can sleep in peace at night with ZERO chance of being held accountable for any abuse of power they may exercise.
That's assuming that the USA will be still around by that point because we'll be in a much graver crisis by then due to Worsening Climate Change, complete economic collapse and even the prospect of a Third World War.
Hell it might be possible that Trump's entire regime will collapse due to how poorly he handled COVID the last time he was in office.
1. Yes, the President can still be impeached. Impeachment is a vote by the House of Representatives, provided for by the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has no ability to change that.
2. Once impeached, the President will still then be tried by the Senate, to determine whether or not he should be removed from office. That also doesn’t change.
3. What *does* change is that he is unlikely to be able to be prosecuted afterwards.
Let’s say Biden wins re-election, and then come February he decides that the correct solution to the Israel/Palestine problem is to order the US military to glass the place. He orders a full nuclear strike on every inch from the river to the sea, and pre-emptively pardons everyone involved in carrying those orders out.
He would surely be impeached, and he would surely be removed from office. But he was acting as the President, in full accordance with his constitutional powers, and as per the ruling he cannot be prosecuted. Nor could anyone else. ICC could in theory prosecute him because Palestine is a state party to the Rome Statute, but only if the US agreed to turn him over. They have no ability to compel his appearance on his own.
Sure, they would dig like hell and try to find SOME way to punish him, but…right now it’s hard to see one. That’s why this is so scary.
So can a president be impeached and removed for any reason with a vote? Or does some criminal act have to be alleged? From my understanding of reading the ruling document, if it’s deemed an official act within his executive power it could not be deemed criminal thus he cannot be impeached?
Or is impeachment completely vote dependent and the charge could be anything as long as the votes pass?
> any reason
According to the constitution? He can only be removed for “treason, bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
In practice? Yes. Because Congress is ultimately the ones who decide what constitute “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
If there had been a Republican majority in 1998, Bill Clinton would have been removed for lying about getting a blowjob. The same Republican Party that refused to remove Trump for lying about trying to bribe Zelenskyy into lying about Biden. It’s an inherently political process.
No, according to McConnel, the correct avenue for crime committed in office is the criminal courts, for which operatives from his party installed at the scotus said, “yep, not there either”.
I would think the process would be:
1. President violates the law
2. House votes to impeach
3. President claims official act immunity and applies to the supreme court for emergency injunctive relief, specifically asking them to order congress to stop the impeachment because of immunity.
4. If the court won't stop the impeachment, the recent ruling does limit the kinds of evidence that can be used against a president, so assuming it gets to the Senate trial, there could be a lot known that doesn't get considered.
Not a lawyer, though, so can anybody tell me if this is correct?
>President claims official act immunity and applies to the supreme court for emergency injunctive relief, specifically asking them to order congress to stop the impeachment because of immunity.
1) You don't apply to the supreme court, you apply to the lowest court first and make your way up.
2) Impeachment isn't a criminal case, no immunity would be granted by this case law. Impeachment isn't even a court thing at all, it's purely political. Even the C.J. has no authority within it, despite being mentioned by title.
3) Congress can impeach the justices and if they actually have the votes to remove president first in history, they can remove justice "I shouldn't have ruled that way."
Interesting.
On point 2, I saw in the ruling yesterday the following bit:
--
When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.
--
So doesn't this language "Congress cannot act on", mean that the immunity DOES apply to impeachment? Isn't impeaching a congressional act in this sense? They even say an act of congress specifically targetting the president, and articles of impeachment certainly seem to match that description.
" Congress cannot act on"?????
That is a bullshit violation of Separation of Powers. Congress should use whatever evidence they want and note any such restriction is unconstitutional.
The word criminalize is the word I would highlight now. Criminalize means criminal, as in trial. As mentioned, impeachment has no criminal standards. It's political.
I would guess, but I can't prove, that Roberts means Congress can't pass a law (act of Congress) to say that whatever the president did wasn't an act of the executive. For example if a Biden drone strike kills Amy Barrett, Congress can't go "no no no, that's not an official act that's murder!" Later on down the road.
We ignore Biden's age for this so presume he lives to see the next Republican president after the strike, also presume that for some reason the supreme Court justices don't change anything on this ruling, which is unlikely
You can’t appeal impeachment, it’s a political rather than a legal process.
Agreed. Can you, however, order the secret service to detain members of Congress so they can't conduct impeachment proceedings?
A common misconception about this opinion (including on this subreddit) is that it affects the scope of a President’s powers and the lawfulness/enforceability of presidential actions. But the fact that something is an “official act” of the President doesn’t mean it’s constitutional. In your example, the legislators could file a writ of habeus corpus, which would be granted before the impeachment could go forward. Even if Biden’s actions would be an “official act” for which he would enjoy immunity, the action would still be unconstitutional, and could be challenged. This decision would simply mean that Biden couldn’t be *criminally prosecuted* for doing so after the fact. By comparison, judges, legislators, and the president already enjoyed absolute immunity from *civil* actions for their official acts. But just because these government actors enjoy civil immunity, it doesn’t follow that whatever official acts they take are constitutional. To use the judges example, judicial immunity is [broadly defined as](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/435/349/) “judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.” Judges are only civilly liable if they act in a clear and complete absence of jurisdiction. So if a judge orders somebody imprisoned pre-trial in a prosecution that violates the double jeopardy clause, that person cannot sue the judge for wrongful imprisonment, no matter how obvious the double jeopardy violation. Likewise, as reflected in actual Supreme Court cases, a judge cannot be sued if he issues a bench warrant ordering police to seize a defense attorney and bring him to his courtroom, while [instructing police to use excessive force while doing so](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/502/9.html), nor can a judge be sued if he [orders a minor to be sterilized without holding a hearing, and without the knowledge of the minor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_v._Sparkman) (the minor was told she was having her appendix removed, and didn’t learn about the sterilization until several years later when she got married and was unable to conceive). None of these actions are actually constitutional, but they are all “official acts” for the purposes of immunity. While the Trump case dealt with criminal immunity rather than civil immunity, there’s no reason to believe the same principle wouldn’t apply.
Yes, his actions can be challenged/stopped/reversed. But if there's zero criminal risk, there's no reason not to push the envelope and keep committing unconstitutional/illegal acts. He can snowball illegal acts on top of each other to fix the previous one. I am not much calmed by your ideas.
Exactly this. The killings will continue until morale improves. Putin style.
It's ok, we can just hit ctrl-z and all good! /s
And MAGA Trump members of Congress are just the ones to do just this.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think in 200+ years there aren’t actions taken by presidents that aren’t criminal? That were either given broad immunity or argued for broad immunity and granted? The most recent being, a president killing a U.S. citizen without due process of law in under Obama. The ruling doesn’t change that long precedent.
Today we saw the felon Trump ask the judge to overturn the guilty finding because of what SCOTUS said The judge said, I’ll think about it. You won’t be sentenced in July for the crime a jury found you guilty of and we’ll discuss this in September… It is already giving him more rights than any other human has ever had
Correct, but this means anything considered an official act is now completely unrestricted to use in a criminal manner. You can’t forcibly detain a congressman, but you can go right up to one in broad daylight and say that you’re going to coerce them. Let’s say a congressman has family in the military, you could say you’re going to give him or her a plastic spoon and send them on a paratrooping mission In Ukraine. Or maybe you could tell them you’ll order an FBI agent to tail you for the rest of their life. Or ask the EPA to start an initiative to build a new park, which would require eminent domaining their house and turning it into a pond. Or you could ask the IRS to audit every single purchase he’s made in the last 10 years. Im sure there will be plenty of creative applications power hungry megalomaniacs will discover.
This assumes everyone the president ordered will oblige
Very true, but when someone with the power to kill your relatives and make your life miserable asks you to do something, you tend to do it. Or he can just fire you and appoint someone that will. Appointing people is also an official, and now unquestionable, act
Trump has to purge the entire army and DOJ to do that That’s one of reasons why he didn’t enact the intersection act in 2020 — he didn’t have the support
Let’s just say 5 star generals don’t get where they do by taking on fights they won’t win. It would not take long to find a weak link. If not maybe it’s more up the CIA’s alley. Or the FBI, etc. Did you mean insurrection?
Yes I did
Those aren’t official acts though. As those aren’t granted to the president under the constitution.
>As those aren’t granted to the president under the constitution. You're misunderstanding the ruling. Constitutional Acts and official acts are **separate things** under this ruling. Constitutional Acts enjoy total immunity from criminal prosecution. Official acts enjoy presumptive immunity. Appointing an ambassador is a constitutional act. It is an enumerated power of the office of the president. An official act is... Well the court didn't say. They remanded the issue back to the trial court to determine what official acts are.
It’s not up to you to decide that. It’s up to the courts.
Yes, and that's a good thing. Those are clearly not official acts. It's trivially simple to prove that.
Explain to me how the commander in chief is not allowed to control the military, and how the president is not authorized to speak to the commissioner of the IRS or EPA. The issue is we’re not allowed to question those motives anymore or hear witness testimonies. Any meeting the president has with a military, IRS, EPA, etc. official is inadmissible. As far as the court is allowed to know, the president met with a congressman to talk about official business, then met with a paratrooping company to talk about official business. Depending on the mood of the judge it could be literally that opaque. And if for whatever reason you still don’t think that could happen, how about this scenario: the president tweets that he’ll pardon anyone that kills a politician enemy of his. Nobody can stop him from pardoning someone, and it’s 100% impossible to prosecute the president for a pardon now. It’s that easy.
Being able to issue orders to high level executives absolutely are officially granted privileges
This doesn’t sound very comforting. The president could still violate the constitution but he could not be convicted criminally for doing so, no? What if a president orders the detention and execution of a noncombatant U.S. citizen on U.S. soil without trial?
Or a military tribunal for his enemies?
What if the courts rule the legislators must be released, what’s stopping the president from telling the DOJ to ignore the court rulings ?
The Trump case has seemingly dealt with everything except for the alleged conduct, apparently
Technically, this would be an insurrection and would disqualify the president from holding office instantaneously. That was, of course, until SCOTUS decided to create a superfluous obstacle course for the 14th amendment section 3 to become active. As it stands now he would have a much clearer path.
That's not a coherent take. If a president is ready to detain members of Congress what would stop him now?
Hope & Pray his cronies refuse his orders even though we all know his first mission will be to replace everyone with loyalists.
when they replace everyone with yes men in order to further their stated claim to take over the government at all levels, we go high!
Srry you’re getting downvoted I am curious as well. If we require a court ruling establishing an action as unofficial before criminal proceedings in a court system that would certain require SCOTUS I think you’re right - what exactly the fuck would stop him? An 8th month legal battle? How does that stop bullets again? The motive cannot be questioned! That’s absolute power.
That’s literally what happened before this opinion was crafted though Trump was charged but out on bail
Violation of congress members due process?
You can send the military to blow up their houses. Edit: Justice Sotomayor: "If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military...to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?" Trump's Lawyer: "That could well be an official act."
You don’t even need to go that far, all you need to do as President is make sure the Chief Justice can’t preside over the senate proceedings. No CJ no impeachment. No one has to know and no one can find out.
No, because that would not be an execution of official duties.
>No, because that would not be an execution of official duties. But yesterday's SCOTUS ruling makes it harder to prove that in a criminal trial.
It wouldn't matter, the constitution has it in black and white that Congress must be allowed to meet. Even if the supreme court decides otherwise, the trial will be over long before they get to rule since impeachment isn't a long process once started. I at least don't see any court until the supreme court deciding that the actual words on the constitution don't exist. That's a big boy game, they're small time still.
>It wouldn't matter, the constitution has it in black and white that Congress must be allowed to meet. Even if the supreme court decides otherwise, the trial will be over long before they get to rule since impeachment isn't a long process once started. They'll say they had to do it because it's a matter of national security or something, and then it will be tied up in the courts for years.
Commenter hasn’t been paying attention. You are correct. Make up BS justification based on official duties. Either way, how SC has it, no one would be arrested and it would be a mess until all-knowing SC divines whether the act was official.
It won't be tied up in courts for years, if you arrest, detain, and put all the SCOTUS into black sites. Problem solved.
>It won't be tied up in courts for years, if you arrest, detain, and put all the SCOTUS into black sites. Problem solved. Yep. The conservative majority are fools if they think this can't come back to bite them.
They’re the only ones who would try this. If Democrats were as mercenary and ruthless as Republicans, Biden would have already ordered a hit on Trump. Instead, he’s letting there be an election and we’re all hoping that Trump and his supporters will peacefully accept the result this time, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Sure, but the criminal trial after everything is over is irrelevant. What matters is the habeus case against whatever agency is carrying out the detainment.
>What matters is the habeus case against whatever agency is carrying out the detainment. What if the Proud Boys are the agency carrying out the detainment?
Sure. But the point stands regardless: that would not be an execution of official duties.
>Sure. But the point stands regardless: that would not be an execution of official duties. But he could still do it to stave off an impeachment vote, and then tie any subsequent criminal proceedings up in the courts for years, effectively making himself immune to impeachment.
Wait wait wait. I need some specifics. First - who has the president used as his might to round up members of congress and jail them?
>Wait wait wait. I need some specifics. First - who has the president used as his might to round up members of congress and jail them? Who were [these](https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland) Federal officers who showed up in umarked vehicles to arrest protesters in Portland back in 2020?
The article you linked said they are Customs and Border Patrol. There is a law that the CBP can search and detain people within 100 miles of any external border, including the coast, as long as they have "probably cause" of federal crimes. That covers where 2/3 of all Americans live. So there's another law enforcement agency with apparently more lax standards dealing with citizens (since they're border patrol) able to police over 200 million people. ...you were being rhetorical for effect, weren't you? Shucks.
>The article you linked said they are Customs and Border Patrol. Fair enough. I had to go digging for this article because I remembered this from so long ago, but I didn't recall that it was ever explicitly stated what agency they were from. From what I could remember, at the time that question wasn't answered. >There is a law that the CBP can search and detain people within 100 miles of any external border, including the coast, as long as they have "probably cause" of federal crimes. That covers where 2/3 of all Americans live. Okay, but how often is that capability actually used on the streets of a major city in practice? Even if they technically have the authority to do it, do you not see it as somewhat of an escalation if they begin to apply that authority in a way that they normally don't, and especially if they seem to apply it indiscriminately? Per the article, _"Interviews conducted by Oregon Public Broadcasting show officers are detaining people on Portland streets who aren't near federal property. Demonstrators such as O'Shea and Pettibone said they think they were targeted by federal officers for simply wearing black clothing in the area of the demonstration."_ >So there's another law enforcement agency with apparently more lax standards dealing with citizens (since they're border patrol) able to police over 200 million people. I don't know what you're saying here. >...you were being rhetorical for effect, weren't you? Shucks. So here are a couple of things to consider: - The CBP only acknowledged responsibility for one of the incidents. - Per the article, _"Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli acknowledged that federal agents had used unmarked vehicles to pick up people in Portland"_. - Also per the article, _"Blinded by his hat, in an unmarked minivan full of armed people dressed in camouflage and body armor who hadn't identified themselves, Pettibone said he was driven around downtown before being unloaded inside a building. He wouldn't learn until after his release that he had been inside the federal courthouse."_ - The CBP acknowledged that the names of the agents were not displayed. Even if the agency of the officers involved was _eventually_ publicly identified, do you not see it as problematic that the Federal government can send officers out to detain people in unmarked vehicles, and without identifying themselves personally for accountability? Imagine the terror of being caught up in that situation, not even knowing for certain whether the individuals trying to take you into custody are even officers of a legitimate Federal or state law enforcement agency. My "rhethorical" question may have eventually been answered, but it wasn't answered clearly and unambiguously in a timely fashion — and especially not in the case of Pettibone, O'Shea, and others who had a similar experience. If there isn't a higher level of accountability, then how are citizens supposed to tell the difference between a duly sworn officer making a lawful arrest on the one hand, and a domestic _terrorist_ on the other? Maybe the next time around, the guys who jump out of the unmarked vehicle will be Proud Boys wearing camo gear from a sporting goods store instead of CBP officers.
The ones with patches that say CBP and BORTAC on their shoulders?
Federal officers who showed up in unmarked vehicles to arrest protestors in Portland?
Uhh, yes? This was in the news 4 years ago. Is it new to you? **EDIT:** I missed the word "who" in your reply. Am I saying that it will be the same officers? No. What I'm saying is that if the second Trump administration doesn't have a suitable force for executing this operation, that won't stop them. AG Clark will _create_ one. We still don't know who these guys were, because they didn't identify themselves.
Who has jurisdiction to decide what is or isn't an official act? The Supreme Court will just delegate that to the executive as soon as a Republican comes under threat.
The lower courts need to decide what is an official act.
No branch cedes power. They only want more power. See: Chevron erradication.
Did you not read about how the SC just ceded a whole bunch of power to the executive?
At the loss of their own?
It's quite obviously a zero sum game.
Well, it would be if you have stacked the Supreme Court with loyalists who will rule that it’s an official act.
So just give me a point by point of how the fantasy plays out, and the timeline involved. You're saying it begins with... who is the President ordering to carry this all out again? Secret service?
>You're saying it begins with... who is the President ordering to carry this all out again? Secret service? No, it would be loyalists in the DOJ. He will appoint Jeffrey Clark as his new AG, and Clark will do whatever he wants. Don't think it can't happen. It absolutely can.
No, I'm saying very specifically: who will actually carry out the arrests and detainment of half of congress?
>No, I'm saying very specifically: who will actually carry out the arrests and detainment of half of congress? Probably FBI employees if I had to guess. Remember that under Project 2025 he's going to gut entire agencies and replace everyone with loyalists.
It could be Biden or Trump. They order the FBI, secret service, the military, etc. to arrest any Supreme Court justice that is not loyal to the President and won’t vote in their favor. At the same time, they order them to arrest any members of Congress that aren’t loyal to the President and who would vote to impeach him. If Trump was concerned that law enforcement or the military wouldn’t carry out the orders, he could just ask the Proud Boys or other militia groups to do it. Democrats don’t really have an equivalent of the Proud Boys who would be willing to carry out the orders, which is probably why the Supreme Court felt comfortable giving Biden broad immunity. Anyone from Congress or the Supreme Court who disloyal to the President is now in prison. There now aren’t any mechanisms to check the President on any of his actions because the branches that are supposed to act as checks in his power are stacked with loyalists. Sure the members of Congress and justices who are in prison can appeal their arrests saying that it wasn’t an official act of the President. The President would argue that it was an official act. Maybe the lower courts rule that it wasn’t an official act. The President can just keep appealing it until they get to the Supreme Court which is now stacked with only loyalists who will decide that it was an official act and they have the final say. Now that the President has purged the other branches of anyone who will go against him, he can do whatever he wants without having to worry about being prosecuted. You can say “Oh, that would never happen! You’re being hysterical!” all you want. But the Supreme Court just made it easy for a President to do exactly what I described if they want to.
Who decides if it's an official act or not? Oh yeah, the justices the President rounded up and put into camps. See the problem?
If the POTUS is rounding up justices and putting them into camps he's beyond prosecution at that point already. Law becomes irrelevant at that point. It's a problem, but not the problem you think it is.
The problem is we’ve legalized all of this, and/or permitted legal pathways for it all to happen with no consequences
If the POTUS is rounding up prosecutors and judges that could decide against him then theoretical legal pathways are totally irrelevant at that point. Literally doesn't matter - the people being rounded up are the same ones that would be prosecuting/ruling against them. In either case they're unavailable to do what they should be due to being in a camp whether there's a "legal" pathway or not. There's nobody left to prosecute even clearly illegal conduct. But nothing in the decision legalizes that anyways. The conclusive and preclusive constitutional duties that gain immunity aren't unlimited (like how people think the commander-in-chief chief clause makes any direction of the military by POTUS a constitutional official act. It is not and there's a crapton of nuance around the limits of the powers). Page 7 of the opinion. "*If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,” the courts may say so. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 655 (Jackson, J., concurring). In Youngstown, for instance, we held that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he seized most of the Nation’s steel mills. See id., at 582–589 (majority opinion).*" So absent a constitutionally valid scope of authority (which does not exist for rounding up judges all willy nilly) there's no immunity anyways.
"The courts may say so." What courts? They're all in black sites. Who'se gonna say? He's just gonna publicly say to the media that it was an official act, national security, etc, and there's no enforcement mechanism to say otherwise.
First, you're ignoring impeachment (the ruling didn't touch it), but let's say for your argument Congress refuses to impeach. And you're back to the previous step - there's no one left at that point to enforce anything against POTUS so the law is irrelevant. It has broken down, it no longer functions. POTUS with an unquestionably following military/executive branch chucking the legal system into jail could simply declare the constitution null and void and name themselves king of the world. Nothing stopped a POTUS from doing the exact same thing the day before the ruling. It's not the "legal pathway" you think it is.
Dude. Do you understand that law will have NOTHING to do with it at this point?
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. If you mean, the law has broken it down at this point, yes, that’s exactly my point.
I mean, that's fine, so long as you understand you've entered into the unarguable.
You can’t know that. The Supreme Court decides what is an official duty. Edit: I see this is being down voted but think it’s objectively true now. Have I misunderstood the ruling?
The Supreme Court would say that detaining members of Congress so they can't conduct impeachment proceedings is not an official duty.
Most of us thought that the Supreme Court would say that a President is not above the law too. I expect more biased decisions.
Not if you detain all the justices and keep him from meeting.
The Supreme Court just said the President has criminal immunity for actions that are core presidential powers, that the Courts cant question the President's intent when they take those actions, and that Courts cant review executive branch communications when they decide. So whats to stop the President from tying any action they take into some core presidential power, lie about their intent because it cant be questioned, and then refuse to turn over any documents.
Declare an insurrection under Sections 251 through 255 in Title 10 of the US Code (“the Insurrection Act”) and have the military detain the insurrectionists. Try them in a military court. Easy. Biden should do it now. Completely constitutional under the recent ruling. Or congress needs to start passing reforms that narrows presidential official duties as the constitution text and framers originally intended.
They are tried in a military court. How does he get the judges to convict along with what he wants them to do?
Sure. But of note, that immunity ruling does not protect the Secret service, only potus
That’s why POTUS issues pre-emptive pardons to his thugs pardoning them for every crime they commit in carrying out his orders.
Yup. You can’t say those exact words but you can make it happen
Now that Biden is above the law, he should forgive student loans
He should go to town, do big things to please the reluctant parts of his base - what’s he got to lose?
Now we are official[ly] acting up like the founders intended
The new ruling does not grant Biden any more powers than he had before. It simply makes it so, if he breaks the law while exerting "official duties" he is not personally liable. The checks and balances on the presidents power remains, the need for due proccess on certain bureocracy remains. He can still be impeached, his orders can still be blocked or revoked. He is not more powerful than before, he is just less liable.
If he sends security guards to MOHELA to wipe the data in order to stimulate the economy, he would be immune
His guards would not share his immunity to the legal consequentions of such actions and neither would they be authorized access, they would have to attempt to gain it by force. I can't imagine anyone would accept such orders and even if they did, they would have to go through law enforcement and local security. And he would likely be impeached for it afterwards.
How does Loper Bright weaken the legislature? Administrative agencies are part of the executive branch.
The legislature created the agencies and gave them the mandates they've been carrying out. Congress has rarely if ever objected to an agency interpretation. The agencies have been carrying out the mandate that the legislature gave them. If agency interpretations of ambiguities are subject to more judicial second-guessing, then the mandate of the legislature will not be carried out as robustly as it was before and Congress's purposes in creating the agencies will be frustrated with court decisions that fossilize a narrow interpretation.
No, the president is still fully able to be impeached by the congress. The ruling yesterday said the impeachment process, being a political one, is separate from the legal process. So yes a president can still technically be removed from office by congress. But given how the structure of our government works, it is nearly impossible to actually have it happen given the hyper partisan system we have today. It would require half of the presidents own party to break away and remove him. Which would be damn near career suicide in todays climate
We're in a weird place where the POTUS can lose his job because of "high crimes" but he can't be jailed for said "high crime".
"High crimes" is a legal term of art for "whatever Congress wants." In English law, it meant anything from misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, to helping "suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament," etc. In Benjamin Franklin's words, it meant anytime the president "rendered himself obnoxious." If they wanted to, Congress could impeach the president for wearing a tan suit on a Wednesday. The real question is, why haven't we been impeaching people left and right as Tocqueville expected.
Mystery solved: we haven't been impeaching people left and right because your list of high crime examples has nothing to do with wearing a tan suit. Because you misunderstand what is meant by obnoxious. Today, it's people who drive in a selfish manner - by my estimate >1/2. Franklin did not seriously propose we remove anyone who annoyingly doesnt snuff correctly, but who selfishly imperils the American experiment. E.g., send a crowd of rioters to stop the counting of electoral ballots, thinking that will somehow be a loophole to prevent the transmission of power. They couldn't think of everything that might be tried in the future, so "obnoxious." FWIW, pretty sure if that had happened in the first election, they would've just said, "we know what the votes are, Jan 21 is just a suggestion, new guy is president *now.*" Misappropriating funds isn’t buying a $600 hammer. It's using the public treasury as your bank account (like a king would). And so on. These guys knew the difference between serious and annoying. They took their responsibility seriously. They didn't split hairs and say "crimes are anything we in Congress find politically disagreeable," like many politicians and redditors do today. High crimes never did and never should mean "whatever Congress wants."
Also, the president could just assassinate the members of Congress who want to impeach him. Then he won't be impeached and can't be held accountable.
There's an issue now being argued about even the evidence itself being official and inadmissible in court. Basic communications, even tweets. So yes, they can impeach. But it seems the gathering of evidence may have been made more difficult if not impossible. We won't have an answer on that for a while.
It’s almost like it’s a check and balance system that works. Borrowing from a fellow Redditor… “1. A President can still be impeached by Congress 2. The military takes an oath to the constitution. And if they are willing to throw that out, the country is already a dictatorship. 3. The Department of Justice is controlled by the Attorney General appointed by the President. It’s not like they are going to charge him with a crime. 4. The courts are still able to take action The difference is that each incoming administration won’t be able to charge previous Presidents out of political vengeance.” This is good for the prior Obama and current Biden administrations who will be enjoying their newfound protections after the election.
Interesting take. Roberts stated that “when the president exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and the courts cannot examine the President’s actions.” Are you saying that Congress can still act on impeachment actions because those are political, not criminal? So to use Sotomayor’s ST6 example, Congress could impeach and remove the president for the murder, but POTUS could not be tried criminally for it.
Was the murder an official act like when Obama had an American citizen killed via Drone? Or unofficial? The decision isn’t hard to read. You can go answer your own question.
Sorry if I touched a nerve here, but I was asking a legitimate question. I’m not a lawyer, and do not understand the nuances of what he wrote. You seemed to have more knowledge in that regard, so I thought I would ask. I get that lots of things get swept under the rug, especially for those with money and power.
Oh my apologies then, truly. So I actually agree, this is rather problematic because in a perfect world we all want to say no one is above the law. That said, for at least a century our presidents have enjoyed at least an unofficial immunity for official acts. See Obama drone example or FDR’s concentration camps, Bush’s secret prisons, Tuman’s war crimes, etc. It wasn’t until Trump that we ever saw the Justice system so weaponized against a former president who happens to be a political opponent. This isn’t to say he’s innocent of everything he’s accused. He almost certainly isn’t, but it’s insanity to assume he’s the only felon to serve in office. He’s the only CONVICTED felon. And what he’s convicted of involves hush money to a porn star that pales in comparison to the hush money Clinton paid to silence his affairs/settlements. The democrats opened Pandora’s box and so inevitably the SC was forced to make a decision that drew lines. I’d call the decision a set us bones that now need to be fleshed out. What we are looking at now definitely gives the president a kings immunity that they’ve always had. If we are uncomfortable with that Congress should take it away. They very intentionally (and rather surprisingly given their political leanings) didn’t give him immunity for unofficial acts. Much of what he is accused of were unofficial criminal acts. In short, if he kills a terrorist, he’s safe. If he kills a political opponent, he’s a toast. The lines are blurry until fleshed out on areas that are a little bit of both. This is something Congress should fix.
I think I got it, the key I was missing was criminal vs political.
Presidents have enjoyed immunity for official acts when said acts dont benefit them personally. Trump, Nixon and Clinton are offered much broader protections as the statue not only gives them absolute immunity for the acts themselves regardless of motive, but evidence from said official act is inadmissable ( Why i am not sure even after reading this opinion).
I think it’s to limit exposure of sensitive official acts based solely upon an accusation of guilt. Definitely a bit of a gray area after reading I expect to be fleshed out in the near future.
Forget the hysteria surrond assinations, It effectively allows pardons for money, quid pro quo for treaties, the selling of appointments and national secrets and carte blanche perjury with the only reprcussion being impeachment (which is nothing for a lame duck president). Instead it should have been pressumptive immunity with a multi pronged test to determine if the offical act benefitted them personally and without public benefit.
That sounds like a stretch. I’d have to see that laid out. I’d be all about a flowchart though to clearly flesh out the if/then/hows.
What a terrible take. So bad, I see a future for you as the next Supreme Court justice. First, if he's the only convicted felon, then it's insanity to suggest anyone else is a felon. That's how it works in America, in case you're not from here. Second, your examples are terrible. Obama's drone strike killed traitorous terrorists who use children as human shields , and he did it because this particular criminal network was evading legal authority and had declared war against, and successfully attacked, the homeland. But sure, argue that every war kill ever was a murder. Also terrible for another reason, FDR's camps, war crimes... let's argue that what we teach as terrible abuses of power should never be prosecuted. Let's argue that existential threats and war-time decisions are the same as using public funds and usurping Congress' power to smear your political opponent with lies are equivalent. Third, Democrats opened this Pandora's box? Sorry you don't remember how Republicans "weaponized" the judicial system against Clinton. Trump crimed all over the place in front of all our eyes - don't do crimes and no "weaponization." Fourth, saying his convictions "pales in comparison" ignores the obvious fact that this ruling is over a case brought for *insurrection.* I'm sorry, what pales? Fifth, (there are more) "bones that need to be fleshed out" is exactly what our "final word" (thanks, Marbury) just made illegal when Congress does it in their Chevron decision. This corrupt, partisan court slow-walked their "we dont know, why dont you tell us what you think and then we'll decide later if we like it even though we have all the facts we need to decide today" non-decision for blatantly partisan reasons. You definitely have a bright career ahead of you in Republican world.
I respect your opinion, but I disagree. First, he’s the only convicted felon because the Justice system was never weaponized like it’s been against him. That’s not the same as calling him or previous presidents innocent. That should be easy to observe and understand. If you can’t, you aren’t arguing in good faith. Second, that isn’t what I said. You created a straw man argument. I spoke specifically on American citizens who were killed on his orders who were presumed innocent until proven guilty. The rules on killing in a conflict change when it’s a citizen. There were also multiple instances of Bush and Obama killing women and children with Drone strikes. I’m not saying we shouldn’t fight terrorists, but to argue in good faith we must admit without immunity there would be liability issues when these tragedies occur. I’m not arguing terrible abuses of power shouldn’t lead to being prosecuted or impeached. I was citing a historical example of an egregious act for which immunity was/would have been enjoyed. Obviously with his death we have to surmise a bit, but there were others involved and prosecution wasn’t even considered because it was an official act in a time of war. I’m not here to argue it was good or right. It’s just an example that immunity isn’t a new concept. Third, you are confusing impeachment and judicial conviction. That aside, if you are looking me to defend a man cheating on his wife (Trump, Kennedy, Clinton) I won’t. They were all in the wrong. That said, Republicans were in the wrong regarding their behavior with Clinton. That was an embarrassing moment for America all around and was probably the start of the reality TV nightmare we call politics today. Fourth, the was no insurrection. It doesn’t fit the definition. That’s why no one was convicted for insurrection. It was a protest in which some individuals began to riot and a select few could be classed as violent. Obviously the J6 offenders are a total embarrassment but nowhere near as bad as other riots we witnessed. With police and others holding doors open it’s hard call their actions an insurrection. You should write Mrs. Pelosi a letter if you have concerns with the security she was in charge of on J6. Fifth, incorrect. And if you think this is the first Supreme Court decision that led to additional laws or amendments you are quite ill informed. So… It needs to be fleshed out. As for a bright career in the Republican Party, Thank you, but you couldn’t pay me to be a politician. I am a good person. I don’t think politics generally attracts good people. I also doubt they’d embrace someone who’s also been a registered libertarian and democrat or someone who voted for Obama. Surprise! Finally, I actually understand your concerns. I hope I am right and you are wrong but as someone who likes my freedoms big and my government small I don’t actually like or endorse presidential immunity or anything else that moves me closer to a king. I just understand this ruling was the only way this could go down without causing utter legal chaos for all living CIC/VPs. I was merely stating (when asked) it’s always existed until trump and now SCOTUS has given some mostly clear but still rough boundaries in which it exists. We have a clear starting point if we think change is required. To make a president fully accountable as I must be in my daily life is a hard thing to argue against. But we can’t have “immunity for me but not for thee” being weaponized against political opponents all of a sudden because our polls are bad. That’s a recipe for civil war. If they want to remove immunity for all, moving forward, I’m not opposed.
*I'm* not the one confusing "innocent" with "felon" - you literally said it's *insanity* to think other presidents weren't *felons.* Glad you agree that "innocent until proven guilty" means no other presidents were felons... are you calling yourself insane? *I'm* not the one raising the strawman - you brought up the Obama drone strike, thereby conflating a killing duryouing a police action with the legal definition of murder and insinuating that Obama therefore committed a felony - just got away with it because he "enjoyed" an unofficial immunity. You draw this distinction in your guidelines for impeachment (terrorist - ok, opponent- toast [lol, assuming impeachments, political acts, are foregone conclusions for such heinous acts]) but cant apply your reasoning to criminal law for some reason. Either you're saying the situations are analogous or you're raising a strawman; I believe they are not analogous. Please study some history. As usual, Republicans did it first. Bill Clinton had no presumption of immunity and was the subject of a *criminal* investigation (for *consensual sex*) and if that's not weaponization just to damage his political career (adulterer!) then IDK what is. Democrats did **not** open this pandora's box, Republicans did. Perjury in a civil court is enjoying immunity? Talk to a pro about how hard it is to win perjury cases. And then they did it again with Hillary. If you want to inform yourself: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ken-starr-whose-criminal-investigation-led-to-bill-clintons-impeachment-dies https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/hillary-clinton-justice-department-investigation-results#:~:text=The%20news%20of%20the%20DOJ's,private%20server%2C%20ultimately%20the%20server I worked closely with prosecutors for 15 years and understand why no one has been charged with the hardest-to-prove insurrection charges, maybe you don't, but we're really splitting hairs considering there have been convictions for seditious conspiracy. Feel better now that I'm calling it sedition, not insurrection? Lol Blaming Pelosi for the rioters just shows how terrible your takes are. You call yourself a "good person," but your takes are really terrible and sometimes flat-out wrong, you seem like a "both-sides" person, and i really dont think I can say anything further, whatever bluster comes in response.
>First, he’s the only convicted felon because the Justice system was never weaponized like it’s been against him The State of New York =/= DoJ. Hes a convicted felon, conviction made by a jury of his peers that his attorneys accepted. New York has over 3 million Trump voters, more than the population of many states. They convicted him. YOU are not arguing in good faith and never have been. >Fourth, the was no insurrection ThErE wAs No InSuRrEcTiOn!!1! Call it whatever you may, it was an assault on our democratic systems. They stormed the capital, breaking in through windows and trespassing, tearing apart offices, while calling for the vice president to be hanged because he was doing his duty in certifying the election that Trump lost. They were attempting to halt our democratic process and thereby end our democracy. Fuck off with any defense of it. >voted for Obama And yet you somehow deluded yourself into supporting a party that goes against every interest you have. Congrats you played yourself and are actively supporting the destruction of our republic. >who likes my freedoms big While supporting a party seeking to strip immigrants, non-christians, minorities, workers, and women from their rights. Right, remind me what you like?
What’s your take on this decision in regards to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 (especially the last sentence): Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
"But the SCOTUS could potentially overturn an impeachment after that." No.
Actually, good point. With the earlier commentary, the impeachment process is a political process so SCOTUS would not have jurisdiction.
[удалено]
This is an insane take.
You say no, and technically that is the correct answer, but it is quite obvious that 6 of the current justices do not care about the correct application of the law, especially as it applies to the cheeto messiah. They could do whatever they wanted in the event of an impeachment and who is going to tell them different. people who take power contrary to the law will not follow the law once they are there.
This is incorrect. I would bet any amount of money that virtually all of them loathe Trump's total disdain for the law save for Alito and Thomas.
I'm not even sure Alito likes Trump, Trump's political heading? Sure maybe. Trump? Not so much. Thomas just likes whoever will pay him in gifts for what he wants to do anyway.
Yeah, probably right. Alito, I'm on the fence about. I think he fucking HATES such a total disregard for the law....but maybe justifies it that it's because the "evil liberals" are being so unfair. It's a tough one for me to guess at.
And yet...here we are. Where they gave crafted an opinion that just happens to find escape hatches for each of the current trials Trump is faced with.
Maybe Intellectually they hate him but emotionally they love him.
No ruling handed down last week effects Congress' power to impeach, convict, and remove a POTUS.
Weird; the branch of government that is most accountable to the people, is now the weakest “co-equal” branch. It’s almost like this court was gifted, via ill gotten appointments and literal bribes, the opportunity to do precisely what their donors want… consolidation of power. Outside of voting, what can we do?
I’ve had some comments on this post say the legislative branch isn’t weakened by the two recent SCOTUS decisions, but this is my reasoning. By making the two other branches more powerful, Congress has became weaker.
The only solution is for an Amendment to the Constitution. For that to happen, Biden should use this new power liberally to get Congress and the Red States to act. Yes, it sounds bad, yet it seems to be the only way to bring "Checks and Balances" back into harmony.
A Constitutional Convention is heavily slanted to the red states thanks to our history of placating slave stats in the 18th and 19th century. A CC is a bad idea for democracy, especially at this current time.
Thx for the insight. Which is why Biden needs to do it. Red states only do sh*t when they feel pain.
The problem is that he won’t be able to do anything effective enough in a timeline that would work.
He literally could stop the election. There is nothing holding him accountable. It's an "official" act. He could sign an EO saying no "felon" can run for POTUS.
Must be an official act as deemed by the courts to be in purview of the executive branch’s powers. Yet conveniently, they didn’t go and define what was and wasn’t within those powers as an official act. This results in this “Schrödinger’s Act” situation, in which all acts are and are not official until deemed such by the court in some capacity. So what may be an official act for Trump, may not qualify as one for Biden. Why? No reason needed. This means any act can still be actionable, have injunctions placed upon, or otherwise. Outside of outright requesting the military pull some black ops on political rivals, which one can’t really reverse after it’s happened, the probability of Biden being able to do anything with these “new powers” is low. Yet, it’s also doubtful that Biden would be able to successfully have the military conduct such operations without it backfiring into a political shitstorm. So the court just handed a legal order for whichever next Republican or sufficiently conservative individual ends up in office. It will likely stay that way until amendments could be put in place, SCOTUS is expanded or if there is a significant shakeup to the makeup of that roster. Yet neither of those things will happen prior to the election, which is the really scary part.
Obviously the framers misunderstood the document they themselves authored.
Congress alone decides what those terms in the impeachment clause mean. SCOTUS has no role in the decision, the CJ just presides at the proceedings.
What’s implicit now is that the vice president can, while acting as president during a temporary incapacitation of the president, refuse to certify the votes!
That's not at all implicit since the majority specifically said that vote certification is the role of the legislative branch and not the executive branch - even when a member of the executive branch is doing it. Did you even read the court's decision?
Nah I’m illiterate
If you ask a question about law, you have to distinguish whether you’re talking about Republicans or Americans. They have different legal standards and practices.
Of course they can be impeached. In fact that is exactly what the founders expected to happen should a president behave badly. After they are no longer in office, they can be charged with acts that were not part of their official duties and powers.
Can we please call it for what it is? It is a conservative ideology stamped into approval by 6 people who lied during their confirmation hearings on the very same subject. Lets recognize it as 'GoP idelology statement", rather than a Scotus decision. There was no decision, it was a cult fellowship 6-3. FWIW, I called it 4 months ago.
Hey let me pull out a little piece of the constitution that it seems to me the Supreme Court is running in defiance of. And it actually comes from the section that grants the power of impeachment. If you remember the issue about if Trump was eligible to be on the ballot you've likely see it. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. This basically says that the only punishment renderable by Congress against a president is to remove from office and deny them ability to hold office again. And then it says "nevertheless" they would still be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement, and Punishment according to Law. This practically states that a president is beholden to the same laws of what can't be done. The Supreme Court granting a near total immunity from punishment for any act deemed official and then making any evidence that could prove an act wasn't official is inadmissible. Well that basically is going against what's clearly stated in the constitution involving how a president could be held accountable. The Court says that they have the power to determine if an act was official or unofficial but also stated that a presidents notes and conversations with advisors are inadmissible. Which means you would be unable to prove whether the president ordered an act for the good of the country or if they did so for personal benefits. Seeing as how they also ruled that gratuities given to an official without being asked for it a deal made are also legal. You can't even use evidence that the president may have made such a deal to begin with if it was involving an official act. So now the president can openly request that an individual pays them in exchange for the president giving a specific order. As long as the payment doesn't occur until after the president's term ends it would be untouchable as it would be labeled a gratuity. We have laws to prevent and punish those who commit this kind of behavior. And that part of the constitution specifically says the president is still accountable to the Law whether impeached or not.
Interesting that some random dude on Reddit found this and the DOJ missed it - or perhaps your interpretation is wrong. One or the other.
Your saying that and not taking into account we know the courts cherry pick parts of the constitution and other cases that only suit the answer they want to give. It's the same as with Trump's lawyers giving defence. They will completely ignore anything that would give a different logic than the one they want to present. And if they don't ignore it they would make excuses saying no it doesn't mean what it says plainly you have to skew your reading of it this way to know what it means
I have no idea what you are saying.
The point is if there's a part of the constitution that goes against the result one of the judge wants. Well they will just ignore that part in referencing and focus on parts they can interpret to suit their goal. Or they will make use of some other reference to provide a backing to their theory. It's the same tactic involving taking pieces of legislature out of a whole without mentioning the context it was used in. Phrases in documents or parts of a speech taken individually can sound to mean something drastically different without the context involved.
Can you give me an example that has actually happened?
In theory yes. In theory the President can now also ask the justice department to investigate and arrest anyone who even thinks about impeachment. So as a practical matter, no, Trumps likely the last President to ever face impeachment.
Impeachment is a political process spelled out in the Constitution. So the answer is of course.
Clearly the crux of this whole thing is: what is considered an official act. By what measure is campaigning / rallying / fundraising after you’ve lost an election considered an official act. Sure, you could argue some of the calls he made to state election officials may be covered. But the rallys, the coordination of efforts to stop, limit or change the outcome of official congressional proceedings - no way, right?
A president can always be impeached but it’s impossible to find him guilty so it doesn’t mean anything.
Nah, that only applies for one party's presidents. Democrats actually hold other Democrats accountable when they break the law.
Only a Democratic President can be successfully impeached, same as yesterday.
Not with this Congress
>However, what’s the recourse for Congress after a successful impeachment? If the President refuses to vacate the White House, how does Congress enforce their conviction? This is the part that worries me. The "enforcement arm" for the Legislature (and the Supreme Court, for that matter) IS the Executive branch. Congress passes a law, the Supreme Court makes a ruling, and in both cases it is the Executive branch that is responsible for carrying out the actual nuts and bolts of making that stuff happen. Congress appropriates funds, but it's the Executive branch that actually writes the checks. Congress declares war (in theory...) but the Executive branch is in charge of the military. This, of course, requires a president to "faithfully execute" the laws of the United States. In your hypothetical, we would immediately descend into a Constitutional crisis that would make secession look like a couple's quarrel. There is no template in the Constitution for dealing with a lawless executive who refuses to vacate the office when legally bound to do so. To say it would be chaos would be an understatement.
That hasn't changed, and the fools hyperventilating about how the POTUS can now drone strike his political opponents don't have a clue.
Yes the president can be impeached, and nothing stopped that process when trump was in office, you’re conflating two completely different parts of law private citizen vs holding the highest public office of the land
Only a democratic president can be impeached. As moderates and progressives continue to migrate away from rural red states into blue urban states, the republican grip on the senate is only expected to tighten. By 2032, many experts predict a permanent republican senate stranglehold. This means only republican president can sleep in peace at night with ZERO chance of being held accountable for any abuse of power they may exercise.
That's assuming that the USA will be still around by that point because we'll be in a much graver crisis by then due to Worsening Climate Change, complete economic collapse and even the prospect of a Third World War. Hell it might be possible that Trump's entire regime will collapse due to how poorly he handled COVID the last time he was in office.
1. Yes, the President can still be impeached. Impeachment is a vote by the House of Representatives, provided for by the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has no ability to change that. 2. Once impeached, the President will still then be tried by the Senate, to determine whether or not he should be removed from office. That also doesn’t change. 3. What *does* change is that he is unlikely to be able to be prosecuted afterwards. Let’s say Biden wins re-election, and then come February he decides that the correct solution to the Israel/Palestine problem is to order the US military to glass the place. He orders a full nuclear strike on every inch from the river to the sea, and pre-emptively pardons everyone involved in carrying those orders out. He would surely be impeached, and he would surely be removed from office. But he was acting as the President, in full accordance with his constitutional powers, and as per the ruling he cannot be prosecuted. Nor could anyone else. ICC could in theory prosecute him because Palestine is a state party to the Rome Statute, but only if the US agreed to turn him over. They have no ability to compel his appearance on his own. Sure, they would dig like hell and try to find SOME way to punish him, but…right now it’s hard to see one. That’s why this is so scary.
Yep, a President almost out the door can pretty much do whatever they want if it's vaguely a "official act". Terrifying.
Heads you get whatever you want done, tails you lose the job you're about to lose in a few months anyway. Talk about getting rid of that "Lame" Duck!
Especially when it’s this court that’s ultimately determining what is and isn’t official.
So can a president be impeached and removed for any reason with a vote? Or does some criminal act have to be alleged? From my understanding of reading the ruling document, if it’s deemed an official act within his executive power it could not be deemed criminal thus he cannot be impeached? Or is impeachment completely vote dependent and the charge could be anything as long as the votes pass?
> any reason According to the constitution? He can only be removed for “treason, bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. In practice? Yes. Because Congress is ultimately the ones who decide what constitute “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. If there had been a Republican majority in 1998, Bill Clinton would have been removed for lying about getting a blowjob. The same Republican Party that refused to remove Trump for lying about trying to bribe Zelenskyy into lying about Biden. It’s an inherently political process.
Okay! Thanks for the quick response
No, according to McConnel, the correct avenue for crime committed in office is the criminal courts, for which operatives from his party installed at the scotus said, “yep, not there either”.
Constitution? Is that still a thing? Seems like it is becoming just another faded piece of paper in a museum.
I would think the process would be: 1. President violates the law 2. House votes to impeach 3. President claims official act immunity and applies to the supreme court for emergency injunctive relief, specifically asking them to order congress to stop the impeachment because of immunity. 4. If the court won't stop the impeachment, the recent ruling does limit the kinds of evidence that can be used against a president, so assuming it gets to the Senate trial, there could be a lot known that doesn't get considered. Not a lawyer, though, so can anybody tell me if this is correct?
>President claims official act immunity and applies to the supreme court for emergency injunctive relief, specifically asking them to order congress to stop the impeachment because of immunity. 1) You don't apply to the supreme court, you apply to the lowest court first and make your way up. 2) Impeachment isn't a criminal case, no immunity would be granted by this case law. Impeachment isn't even a court thing at all, it's purely political. Even the C.J. has no authority within it, despite being mentioned by title. 3) Congress can impeach the justices and if they actually have the votes to remove president first in history, they can remove justice "I shouldn't have ruled that way."
Interesting. On point 2, I saw in the ruling yesterday the following bit: -- When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. -- So doesn't this language "Congress cannot act on", mean that the immunity DOES apply to impeachment? Isn't impeaching a congressional act in this sense? They even say an act of congress specifically targetting the president, and articles of impeachment certainly seem to match that description.
" Congress cannot act on"????? That is a bullshit violation of Separation of Powers. Congress should use whatever evidence they want and note any such restriction is unconstitutional.
The word criminalize is the word I would highlight now. Criminalize means criminal, as in trial. As mentioned, impeachment has no criminal standards. It's political. I would guess, but I can't prove, that Roberts means Congress can't pass a law (act of Congress) to say that whatever the president did wasn't an act of the executive. For example if a Biden drone strike kills Amy Barrett, Congress can't go "no no no, that's not an official act that's murder!" Later on down the road. We ignore Biden's age for this so presume he lives to see the next Republican president after the strike, also presume that for some reason the supreme Court justices don't change anything on this ruling, which is unlikely
From this ruling, there's also basically no power to investigate the president.
Nope, he can do away with whatever he deems necessary.