Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
U.S. Supreme Court in Trump ruling declares ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
Fuck. This is bad, right? Like, really bad?
Fuck. This is bad, right? Like, really bad?
It’s okay! It’s only for official acts that are core to their job. Of course, the assholes of the Supreme Court didn’t actually define which acts are “core” acts and which ones aren’t, but I’m sure THAT won’t be confusing or leave enough room for corrupt exploitation. No, not at all.
Also, could someone explain to me how the “originalist” branch of the court thinks this matches with the original intent of the founders when they wrote the Constitution? Because it’s looking a whole lot like Thomas and Alito only claim originalism when it suits their political views. They are both such neutral devotees of the rule of law, though, so that can’t be it.
If I understand the court correctly, Biden would be prosecuted for that act. If he orders a member of the military to do that, though, he’s fine. You know, like any healthy democracy.
The sad thing is, as glorious as it would be, I don't see Biden doing anything to take advantage of this new power. He's a better person than Trump. Not necessarily a "good" person, just better than someone like Trump.
figmentPez
Staff member
The final words in Justice Sotomayor's dissent:
"Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.
"With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
"Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.
"With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
The Supreme Court has made horrible decisions such as with Dred Scott, Plessy, and Korematsu. Those were bad decisions spread over several different courts. The Roberts Court has consistently churned out awful rulings at that scale of horribleness. That’s what happens when justices are confirmed by senators who represent sparsely populated flyover states.
Last edited:
Dave
Staff member
I disagree with this. Flyover states do not have a monopoly on stupidity. I’ve lived in small communities and big cities. Stupidity is universal.
This is what happens when a single party coalesces around ideology while the other is too feckless to fight.
Okay, that's a fairer assessment. But the fact is that mostly white, rural, Christian states have a controlling share of votes. North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming combined only contain two percent of the American population and yet they have ten senators between them. In order to win a primary, those senators have to appeal to the even whiter, older, more religious, and more rural primary voters.
Maybe ranked-choice voting should be the rule.
Maybe ranked-choice voting should be the rule.
This might be a dumb question because I don't fully understand how it all works, but...is there absolutely nothing Biden or any other Democrat in power can do to stop this? If so, why aren't they doing it?
GasBandit
Staff member
Because democrats will wring their hands concernedly and have breakout sessions until the boots are coming down the hall.
The democrats are a party hiding everything from the fringe extreme left all the way to the central-right, while the Republicans are only the extreme right. Sure, there are some variations between "somewhat acceptable hyper conservative" and "neo fascists" and "hyper theocratic religious wing nuts", but they're all extreme and all very, very right wing. It's just much easier to have a focused message that way.
A realistic, present third party would really, really benefit the system, even if they'd never really get in power - see: the LibDems in the UK - but there just isn't one.
A realistic, present third party would really, really benefit the system, even if they'd never really get in power - see: the LibDems in the UK - but there just isn't one.
I disagree. It's not because they're a useless infighting bunch of unorganized groups that they don't exist.
The green, socialist, communist, etc parties in Europe are constantly infighting as well. And their intentions and missions don't exactly always line up (e.g. "open borders and freedom for all" vs "protect LGBTQ values"....I'm sorry, importing hundreds of thousands of muslims will have a negative impact on LGBTQ rights in the country, at the very least in the short term, choose one).
It all depends on what axis you're taling about, and what you consider far left, and so forth. That there's no serious social-democratic political side that stands of more protections for the average worker and for more income equality, sure, I'll agree - anything that doesn't fit into "Hypercapitalism mercantile serfdom 2.0 is America and Freedom Rah Rah" is by definition branded as communist. On the cultural/values front, some of the more leftwing lobby groups are further left than most similar groups in Europe (e.g. PETA or some openl misogynist "activist feminist" groups). They exist, even if they're fringes, which is why they can be used as strawmen for the right to scare them away from anything resembling the center left.
The green, socialist, communist, etc parties in Europe are constantly infighting as well. And their intentions and missions don't exactly always line up (e.g. "open borders and freedom for all" vs "protect LGBTQ values"....I'm sorry, importing hundreds of thousands of muslims will have a negative impact on LGBTQ rights in the country, at the very least in the short term, choose one).
It all depends on what axis you're taling about, and what you consider far left, and so forth. That there's no serious social-democratic political side that stands of more protections for the average worker and for more income equality, sure, I'll agree - anything that doesn't fit into "Hypercapitalism mercantile serfdom 2.0 is America and Freedom Rah Rah" is by definition branded as communist. On the cultural/values front, some of the more leftwing lobby groups are further left than most similar groups in Europe (e.g. PETA or some openl misogynist "activist feminist" groups). They exist, even if they're fringes, which is why they can be used as strawmen for the right to scare them away from anything resembling the center left.
There’s a lot that the democrats can do. The three branches are supposed to have checks and balances. I’m sure there are things Biden could do on his own to bring to court to heel. And he won’t do any of them because he’s too old, too stupid, too cowardly and too married to the idea that laws are something more noble than stuff we just made up.
Such as?
Well, as far as I know (but IANAL nor an American), technically the Legislative Branch can control the Judicial Branch - a Supreme Court Justice can be impeached just like the president. But that requires a majority in the house and...I dunno, either a majority or a 2/3rds or something in the Senate. In other words, you need Republican buy-in. The Founding Fathers assumed senators and representatives would be honorable men, not party slaves who vote in lockstep. Not gonna happen.
Similarly, the number of Supreme Court Justices isn't in the Constitution, so it should be possible to increase it to, say, 13 and just add 4 progressives to bring it back in balance. But I'm not sure who would be allowed to do that (I suppose Congress, again) and once they start meddling with it - well, next time the Republicsn control both chambers they could decrease it to 3, remove all moderate/progressives, then increase it back to 9 and put in 9 SuperReactionaries. Or just keep on increasing it until there's 111 of them and nothing gets done anymore and it's stuck in eternal gridlock. Neither of those is a positive idea for the future. There's a reason the three branches are supposed to be somewhat independent (even though the line between legislative and executive is...somewhat porous these days - not just in the US but everywhere. Frankly, most parliaments/houses/chambers have become so particratic that there might as well just be one button per party in most cases.
The Executive Branch (president and co) are supposed to be the weakest on matters of the longer term, but with more power in the short term and for immediate matters (you don't want a full congress meeting to decide on a bunch of smaller and practical things; the President can make Executive Decisions to immediately change or do something but t hey aren't supposed to last). The Legislative Branch is supposed to set long-term intentions, and the Judicial Branch should make sure the laws made are proper, constitutional, interpreted "honestly", and so forth. I guess I don't need to say the system is currently quite broken (and Mitch McConnell has a LOT to do with that).
Since the Republicans control the Judicial Branch and half the Legislative Branch, I'm not actually sure there's a lot the Democrats can do - without wildly overreaching and interpreting some things in such a way that Republicans can just wepaonize it and stretch it open to further power abuse in the future.
Similarly, the number of Supreme Court Justices isn't in the Constitution, so it should be possible to increase it to, say, 13 and just add 4 progressives to bring it back in balance. But I'm not sure who would be allowed to do that (I suppose Congress, again) and once they start meddling with it - well, next time the Republicsn control both chambers they could decrease it to 3, remove all moderate/progressives, then increase it back to 9 and put in 9 SuperReactionaries. Or just keep on increasing it until there's 111 of them and nothing gets done anymore and it's stuck in eternal gridlock. Neither of those is a positive idea for the future. There's a reason the three branches are supposed to be somewhat independent (even though the line between legislative and executive is...somewhat porous these days - not just in the US but everywhere. Frankly, most parliaments/houses/chambers have become so particratic that there might as well just be one button per party in most cases.
The Executive Branch (president and co) are supposed to be the weakest on matters of the longer term, but with more power in the short term and for immediate matters (you don't want a full congress meeting to decide on a bunch of smaller and practical things; the President can make Executive Decisions to immediately change or do something but t hey aren't supposed to last). The Legislative Branch is supposed to set long-term intentions, and the Judicial Branch should make sure the laws made are proper, constitutional, interpreted "honestly", and so forth. I guess I don't need to say the system is currently quite broken (and Mitch McConnell has a LOT to do with that).
Since the Republicans control the Judicial Branch and half the Legislative Branch, I'm not actually sure there's a lot the Democrats can do - without wildly overreaching and interpreting some things in such a way that Republicans can just wepaonize it and stretch it open to further power abuse in the future.
For one prosecute him anyway. There is no law, stature or amendment that has ever given presidents immunity. It’s a legal lie told by the Supreme Court during the Nixon administration and it’s past time we did away with this divine rights of kings fucking bullshit. He could pack the court. He could prosecute Alito and Thomas for corruption. He could cut off the justices pay checks. He could close the doors to the Supreme Court and refuse to ever open it up again.
The Supreme Court are not actually kings as much as Biden would have you believe it.
figmentPez
Staff member
I don't have time to research it, but I'm pretty sure that there have been rulings by the Supreme Court that have just been ignored before.
...because just like in the movies, it's gonna be, "Oh but we could never do something like that. We're supposed to be the good guys."
Biden is no Crowley.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
"(Supreme Court Chief Justice) John Marshall has made his decision, now let HIM try to enforce it." - Andrew Jackson
Worcester v. Georgia - New Georgia Encyclopedia
In the court case Worcester v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1832 that the Cherokee Indians constituted a nation holding distinct sovereign powers. Although the decision became the foundation of the principle of tribal sovereignty in the twentieth century, it did not protect the...
www.georgiaencyclopedia.org
Switching from the US to the UK for a minute. The BBC has an article about civil injunctions - it's fairly surface level & leaves me hoping it's leading up to an in depth episode of Panorama or something on it. TLDR is that civil injunctions are basically just SLAPP suits designed to criminalise the right to protest.
GasBandit
Staff member
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Trump is entitled to “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution” for “official acts,” but enjoys “no immunity for unofficial acts.” The decision sends Trump’s federal election subversion case back to the trial judge to determine which – if any – of his actions were part of his official duties and thus protected from prosecution. “The president is not above the law,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. “But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.” Roberts noted that Trump asserted “a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized,” and “not everything the President does is official.” Trump faces four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruction of an official proceeding, for his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Biden. The court’s decision likely ensures that Trump won’t be tried before the election, and if he is reelected, Trump is expected to order the Justice Department to drop the charges against him – or pardon himself. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s Jan. 6 case, will now determine whether Trump’s actions, such as pressuring the Justice Department to investigate unfounded claims of widespread election fraud and urging Pence to refuse to certify the election results during the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, are considered “official.” The court’s three liberal justices made clear in their dissent that they view the ruling by their conservative colleagues as a threat to democracy that will have “disastrous consequences.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law […] The damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law […] When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.” Trump, meanwhile, wrote on his personal social media platform: “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY.” (Associated Press / New York Times / Washington Post / ABC News / NPR / Politico / Bloomberg / NBC News / Wall Street Journal / Axios / CNN / CNBC)
The Supreme Court declined to rule on Republican-backed laws in Florida and Texas that regulate the content moderation practices of social media companies. Instead, the justices unanimously agreed to return the cases to lower courts, saying the courts had failed to properly assess the First Amendment issues central to the dispute. Both laws seek to prevent social media companies from removing certain kinds of political speech, a response to allegations that the companies were illegally censoring conservative “viewpoints,” like when Facebook, Twitter, and others banned Trump’s accounts after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Research, however, has suggested claims of an anti-conservative bias on social media is unfounded. (Associated Press / Politico / Washington Post / New York Times / NBC News / Wall Street Journal / Bloomberg)
53% of voters say they’re more concerned about Biden’s age than Trump’s criminal charges and threats to democracy (42%). In a hypothetical head-to-heads between Biden and Trump, 45% of voters choose Biden and 48% of voters choose Trump. (Data for Progress)
27% of voters say Biden has the mental and cognitive health to serve as president, while 50% say the same for Trump. (CBS News)
41% of Democrats said the Democratic Party should replace Biden as its presidential nominee. Overall, 54% of Americans said Biden should be replaced as the nominee, while 51% said the same for Trump. (USA Today)
The Supreme Court declined to rule on Republican-backed laws in Florida and Texas that regulate the content moderation practices of social media companies. Instead, the justices unanimously agreed to return the cases to lower courts, saying the courts had failed to properly assess the First Amendment issues central to the dispute. Both laws seek to prevent social media companies from removing certain kinds of political speech, a response to allegations that the companies were illegally censoring conservative “viewpoints,” like when Facebook, Twitter, and others banned Trump’s accounts after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Research, however, has suggested claims of an anti-conservative bias on social media is unfounded. (Associated Press / Politico / Washington Post / New York Times / NBC News / Wall Street Journal / Bloomberg)
53% of voters say they’re more concerned about Biden’s age than Trump’s criminal charges and threats to democracy (42%). In a hypothetical head-to-heads between Biden and Trump, 45% of voters choose Biden and 48% of voters choose Trump. (Data for Progress)
27% of voters say Biden has the mental and cognitive health to serve as president, while 50% say the same for Trump. (CBS News)
41% of Democrats said the Democratic Party should replace Biden as its presidential nominee. Overall, 54% of Americans said Biden should be replaced as the nominee, while 51% said the same for Trump. (USA Today)
Wow. That's an insane statistic. Wow.