In the sense that the president couldn’t be prosecuted for giving the order, probably. I’m not 100% sure what he’d have been charged with before
But a lot of the discussion of this blurs the distinction between “can’t be prosecuted for making the order” and “can’t be prosecuted for carrying it out”
Oh he 100% could.
But he could have done that before. And I have some doubts that the fear of being prosecuted for… something(?) is the difference between a president willing to order that and one who isn’t.
And, yes, there are other constraints, but the rule of law was a pretty big one.
Trump floated this several times during his presidency. And was told he can’t do that each time.
What happens if he holds up this ruling and says “why not?”
“Plans are already in motion to use this new, historic court decision as a legal shield to help a potential second Trump administration implement his extreme policy agenda with less concern for rules and laws, sources with knowledge of the matter say.”
At least at first blush, the examples of extreme actions which could be aided by this ruling… aren’t
The thing stopping Trump from sending active duty troops to US cities to “bring order” wasn’t his fear of being personally prosecuted, it was that the military would (we hope) refuse unlawful orders
Maybe. That’s the best argument I’ve heard for this being “can do whatever he wants now”. But I have a hard time imagining someone who yesterday would have said “no, that violates posse comitatus and the constitution” now going “if he can’t be prosecuted, I’ll follow whatever order he gives”
You’re right that the first general says that. Trump fires him and three more, until he gets the one that’s says “ok”.
The difference is now Trump *knows for a fact* that he’s right and the general is wrong
I think Trump is more likely to fire generals to get the one willing to do it, because *he* knows it’s “legal” now, so when a general says it’s “illegal”, he knows they’re wrong/lying
And I guess my expectation is that he would have tried that anyway. After feeling betrayed by Milley I have zero faith that he’d have restrained himself from firing a general who refused his orders.
It’s certainly possible! I do wish we were doing a better job distinguishing between what makes the decision in and of itself dangerous and what makes it dangerous because of how it might be interpreted.
But how it will be interpreted (how it already is being interpreted!) is a huge part of what makes it dangerous!
Once we say this man is above the law, the rule of law as a concept is fatally wounded
That fatal wound doesn’t arise from the one man, doing things that put them above the law.
It arises from *everyone else* watching that man, who is above the law.
That’s the fundamental sin of this ruling, and the fundamental flaw of having a king at all
So, I see no reason to separate them. Or, rather, distinguish them if you want, but I’m more worried about the one you seem to be dismissing.
That is the one that kills the republic.
That’s probably true, but we’re discussing a guy who already behaved as if he were a king. Drop in the bucket, hat on a hat.
I don’t think it’s naïveté to say that whatever portion of our institutional resistance to that Trump can override was already within his grasp before this decision.
