Biden surrogates brushed off questions about reining in the court, while emphasizing the gravity of a second Trump term.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that American presidents have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for any “official acts” they take while in office. For President Joe Biden, this should be great news. Suddenly a host of previously unthinkable options have opened up to him: He could dispatch Seal Team 6 to Mar-A-Lago with orders to neutralize the “primary threat to freedom and democracy” in the United States. He could issue an edict that all digital or physical evidence of his debate performance last week be destroyed. Or he could just use this chilling partisan decision, the latest 6-3 ruling in a term that was characterized by a staggering number of them, as an opportunity to finally embrace the movement to reform the Supreme Court.

But Biden is not planning to do any of that. Shortly after the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Trump v. The United States, the Biden campaign held a press call with surrogates, including Harry Dunn, a Capitol police officer who was on duty the day Trump supporters stormed the building on Jan. 6; Reps. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas); and deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks.

Their message was simple: It’s terrifying to contemplate what Donald Trump might do with these powers if he’s reelected.

“We have to do everything in our power to stop him,” Fulks said.

Everything, that is, except take material action to rein in the increasingly lawless and openly right-wing Supreme Court.

  • Billiam
    5•5 months ago

    But that’s not all. They also ruled that you can’t use official acts in the process of determining what wasn’t an official act. If Biden ordered the military to assassinate Trump, the fact that the President is Constitutionally the head of the military and that the military must obey orders from the President couldn’t be used as evidence that he gave an illegal order.

    This situation is fucked up.

    • @[email protected]
      -1•5 months ago

      The US military can choose to ignore illegal orders to execute citizens protected by the Constitution. They did not swear an oath to the president, only an oath to protect the Constitution.

      No military leader will want to go to a military tribunal where arbitration is decided as punishment and has no jury by peers. It would be either a death sentence if any military official followed the order, or a hard life in a military prison.

      In fact, I read that it is codified in the US law Uniform Code of Military justice to be obligated to deny an illegal or an immoral order.

      • Billiam
        6•5 months ago

        My dude, you’re acting like Monday’s decision didn’t happen.

        SCOTUS delineated presidential immunity into three situations:

        1. Unofficial acts- no immunity.

        2. Official acts- presumed immunity. However, no official acts can be used to determine the legality or official-ness of an act.

        3. Constitutionally delegated exercises of authority- total immunity.

        In other words, laws are subordinate to Presidential exercises of Constitutional authority. Under the decision rendered by SCOTUS on Monday, as the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, any order he gives the military he would have total immunity for and thus wouldn’t be “illegal” as such. Also, because the pardon power is listed in the Constitution, there’s no oversight for it either.

        So yes, the President could absolutely order the military to assassinate a citizen with the promise of pardoning them, and there’s literally no recourse anyone could take.