under the opinion in trump v. united states there was no need for john yoo to come up with an elaborate justification for torture. george w. bush could have ordered an interrogator to crush the testicles of a child, no questions asked.
Yes, but both before and after Trump v US the interrogator could be prosecuted and the president would have to pardon them. Not sure how relevant this is—that avenue of lawlessness has always been open.
There is also every reason to think that this court will expand Trump v. U.S in his second term to extend immunity to those doing his bidding. I.e., “Our holding in Trump v. U.S. demands that government officials be able to enact the will of the executive without fear of criminal proceedings.”
They're basically annihilating the entire concept of judicial review.
"This action you're taking is unconstitutional, but there's no penalty for it if you do so, or for the people who knowingly carry out unconstitutional acts"
Also if we follow Roberts's logic that constant prosecutions of Presidents for carrying out official acts will throw the executive into chaos, so would prosecuting anyone with the capacity to carry out those acts
But what they did is kneecap themselves. There's no real legal incentive for a President to care about anything SCOTUS says if the only remedy is convincing 66 Senators to convict and remove.
This doesn't work, because you can't preemptively pardon so they have to go the full nine yards and make clear what they are doing ( even if it's saying you *can* preemptively pardon)
"The three branches being coequal, our finding of presidential immunity also confers me personally, head of the judicial branch, infinite absolute immunity. This will also apply to Congress whenever a Republican is Speaker."
How could someone possibly say that the President has immunity for an giving an order but the person who folliws it does not? Doesn't pass the smell test, especially given the reasoning that the Prez got this immunity so he can act quickly and decisively without thinking of legal consequences.
Doesn't even need the courts. The president can direct Justice not to investigate or prosecute (technically the ruling says this might be illegal, but it gets a *presumption* of immunity and all evidence is inadmissible) or the president can issue pardons (absolutely immune even if sold openly).
I mean, from a policy execution standpoint, it'd be insane not to.
Remember, Hitler never had to repeal the Weimar Constitution. He just filled it with enough loopholes that he could do whatever he wanted.
So don’t give them the opportunity. Work your butt off and ensure he’s beaten by such numbers no amount of fuckery will help him. Then make sure the democrats actually investigate and impeach justices NEXT year not in 2028. Stay on them.
There's also reason to believe that if the Republicans win in November, the *court* will be expanded to make a 9-3 majority that lasts another 40 years.
