Right-wing legal talking heads are focusing on arguing that it is RIDICULOUS to say that a second-term Trump will be empowered by immunity to do horrific things, while carefully preparing to argue in seven months that it is RIGHT that Trump do horrific things which aren’t actually horrific anyway.
There is no depth to which Jonathan Turley will not sink. He’ll say that Trump will never do the outrageous things Trump threatens to do, and that there are laws in place to prevent it, then when Trump does them he will say the laws don’t apply and that Trump was forced to do the things by woke.
And there's a list! A genuine "this is what we intend to do" list! It is getting harder and harder to dismiss that list as unrealistic or unobtainable!
The number of right-wingers that are GENUINELY LOOKING FORWARD to using the full force of the state against their perceived enemies in 2025 is big!
This is the language that Democrats need to use. These people are un-American. The Supreme Court is making anti-American and pro-authoritarian rulings. Don't just make it about Trump. It is him, his party and the Supreme Court.
Don't be like other countries where the far-right has won elections. Don't leave anything angle on the table. Be frank and direct about the real threat to democracy. Criticize the mainstream media for not taking the threat seriously too.
I’d love to ask these people what their reaction to “The President ordered a Nuclear Missile strike on a Major City” would be like that isn’t downplaying it as, “no one would never do it.” or “look at the Democrats.”
Why invent hypotheticals? Trump believed that Covid would only kill people in "blue cities", so, he, shot down policies to prevent it. He chose to commit domestic bio-warfare in the hopes more of his enemies would die than his allies, and if some allies died, well, omelettes and eggs and all that.
He is absolutely awful. I'm embarrassed to say that when I first saw him in interviews in the mid 2000's I liked him. Apparently someone came and offered him a deal he couldn't refuse.
I’m just looking forward to a democratic president getting charged with a crime so the court can explain how everyone misinterpreted this ruling and the immunity should be much more narrowly applied.
They do it because they NEVER pay a price for it. Supreme Court makes an evil decision? They just laugh and collect their bribes. If mass demonstrations occur at the Justices homes, scum like Josh Hawley cry on the Senate floor about how they deserve privacy.
What is it going to take?
Would it be about accurate to say that the immunity decision still allows Prez actions to be struck down as illegal/unconstitutional, but OTOH POTUS could just have those judges killed?
Yes, more or less. But let’s not jump straight to the President killing judges, like with his bare tiny hands. He can just ask the Proud Boys to kill the plaintiffs bringing the cases challenging his actions and then pardon them.
Works best if he uses federal law enforcement or the military to do it, since running those are a part of his "core" constitutional responsibilities and thus clearly an official act. No needing to rely on outside armed groups when giving them instructions might not fall under "official act."
No worries. The constitution says the pres is cinc of the militia, and federal law defines the militia as all men aged 17-45 and women in the national guard.
In terms of any evidence of motive being used against him in a trial, probably! I'm just sayin' if I were in charge of the brand new "Executive Office of Assassinations" I'd want my boss to start off using the most steel-manned argument where they have absolute immunity for their action.
On Jan 6 the Proud Boys etc were waiting for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act and "deputize" them to start kidnapping Democrats. All now perfectly legal. Or Roger Stone literally bragging on tape about wanting enemy Congressmen assassinated. Still not legal yet but Trump could just pardon them.
He can stand at the lectern at the SOTU, point down at the scotus justices in attendance, and say “i declare them homo sacre — anyone who kills them shall be pardoned”
Now I'm wondering if this immunity also applies to the VP as a member of the executive branch. Could the VP get immunity for having the president taken out as an official act?
What about state charges? Are you assuming (not without reason!) that the courts will extend the presidential pardon to cover state offenses to facilitate this sort of thing?
state charges. lol.
These six judges have said any president can do whatever he wants as long as it’s an official act.
The only restriction is that the act can’t be an act the president says is a non-official act.
wtf that means.
i think that's the thing that galls me the most... SCOTUS has set itself up as the only arbiter whether any particular act is official or not, so regardless of what Congress and the president enact, THEY decide whether a president can be criminally liable. AND, you know that....
if there's another impeachment, someone is going to argue that nothing the president did constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor... because it'll be argued an official act, and SCOTUS will be the only entity able to rule one way or the other... so impeachment will turn into a SCOTUS case.
it's...
a travesty of an opinion.
the way these opinions have been written, Bruen included, my irrational thought is that it's as if they're authored by the FedClerks and not the justices, and forced published by some kind of leverage over Roberts, K, G, T, and A (though some need less leverage). slimy.
Why do you think they have to be blackmailed? These guys were nominated because they are true believers in Republicans being above the law. Nixon, Bork, Reagan, Bush, Trump. It's a straight line of crimes and resistance to consequences.
