He can pack the supreme court. Then limit it to something tangible.
Like first, say that 2 senators per state is silly and it needs to be based on population like the house if reps. Then say that we need a supreme court justice from all 50 states + D.C. or some shit.
Boom.
Then term limits, age limits… Ranked choice, strict laws in gerrymandering…
There are so many misinformed people on this ruling. It doesn’t give the President more executive authority, like a king. It lets him commit crime without personal responsibility if it’s an official act.
Yes, it’s insane and deplorable, but it doesn’t mean Biden can do anything he wants.
If it did, he could just outlaw felons from becoming President. SCOTUS doesn’t want that.
If it did, he could just outlaw felons from becoming President. SCOTUS doesn’t want that.
“I have ordered the military to detain Donald Trump in a Federal max security prison and destroy all ballots marked with his name on election day. This is not a change in the laws of our great nation, this is just an act that I am ordering to be performed in my official capacity as POTUS. God bless America.”
lmao, I mean, I don’t think it has any real chance of happening. But what stops it is Biden being Biden. If it were, say, a fascist in the Oval Office, the only question would be “Who do I ask to do this dirty work?”
It really doesn’t change much. Instead of just ignoring what presidents do that might be criminal, it’s explicitly immune.
Also this ruling doesn’t grant further immunity to others. The president can order seal team 6 to kill someone, but they’d still face charges if it wasn’t plausibly a legitimate target.
Good point, and well made. The immunity is explicitly for POTUS. If those carrying out the act are aware they are committing a crime they could be charged accordingly.
It unfortunately may change a lot for Trump, depending on what judges rule to be “official acts” of his Presidency. Cannon may use this to throw out the documents case.
Cannon may use this to throw out the documents case.
How? The documents case is about stuff he did after he left office. Things he does after he is no longer President definitionally cannot be official acts of his Presidency.
There is no duration limit to the immunity ruling. If she deems the ownership of documents an official act, she could rule that immunity covers all acts related to the documents until their return.
I don’t understand what you mean. Even if he believed he had the right to retain the documents, he wasn’t willfully improperly keeping the documents or obstructing their retrieval until after he was out of office - you’d basically just have to not charge him regarding any documents he handed over the first time, because after the first time handing over documents he definitely knew better and definitely wasn’t in office.
He can pack the supreme court. Then limit it to something tangible.
Like first, say that 2 senators per state is silly and it needs to be based on population like the house if reps. Then say that we need a supreme court justice from all 50 states + D.C. or some shit.
Boom.
Then term limits, age limits… Ranked choice, strict laws in gerrymandering…
And we have a functioning Republic again.
None of that is in within the power of POTUS.
The structure of Congress is determined by The Constitution and its Amendments.
Congress needs to pass enlarging the Supreme Court with a vote, and Republicans have House majority.
POTUS?
KOTUS.
There are so many misinformed people on this ruling. It doesn’t give the President more executive authority, like a king. It lets him commit crime without personal responsibility if it’s an official act.
Yes, it’s insane and deplorable, but it doesn’t mean Biden can do anything he wants.
If it did, he could just outlaw felons from becoming President. SCOTUS doesn’t want that.
“I have ordered the military to detain Donald Trump in a Federal max security prison and destroy all ballots marked with his name on election day. This is not a change in the laws of our great nation, this is just an act that I am ordering to be performed in my official capacity as POTUS. God bless America.”
And while he won’t face any charges himself the military will refuse to execute what is an obviously unlawful order.
It’s all about asking the right people.
If making up imaginary scenarios in your mind that have no chance of happening makes you feel better go for it my man.
lmao, I mean, I don’t think it has any real chance of happening. But what stops it is Biden being Biden. If it were, say, a fascist in the Oval Office, the only question would be “Who do I ask to do this dirty work?”
Well, presidents can also leverage other actors to help them out. Quid pro quo, you might say.
Unfortunately that really only tends to work in the favor of bad actors. There is no legitimate reason to have immunity for “good.”
It really doesn’t change much. Instead of just ignoring what presidents do that might be criminal, it’s explicitly immune.
Also this ruling doesn’t grant further immunity to others. The president can order seal team 6 to kill someone, but they’d still face charges if it wasn’t plausibly a legitimate target.
Good point, and well made. The immunity is explicitly for POTUS. If those carrying out the act are aware they are committing a crime they could be charged accordingly.
It unfortunately may change a lot for Trump, depending on what judges rule to be “official acts” of his Presidency. Cannon may use this to throw out the documents case.
Except the President has pardon power.
Soooo, henchmen also have absolute immunity if the president is fully aware that what he has ordered is illegal.
That’s a good and terrifying point.
Biden could also grant immunity to others in carrying out his potential illegal actions, like trump did. If you want to fanfiction this scenario
How? The documents case is about stuff he did after he left office. Things he does after he is no longer President definitionally cannot be official acts of his Presidency.
There is no duration limit to the immunity ruling. If she deems the ownership of documents an official act, she could rule that immunity covers all acts related to the documents until their return.
I don’t understand what you mean. Even if he believed he had the right to retain the documents, he wasn’t willfully improperly keeping the documents or obstructing their retrieval until after he was out of office - you’d basically just have to not charge him regarding any documents he handed over the first time, because after the first time handing over documents he definitely knew better and definitely wasn’t in office.