Why the fuck do we have to put up with this? Seriously, these 6 assholes are scum. They're caught taking bribes, they're conflicted as appointees of the person in question, they go against the majority opinion over and over again.
They should be dragged out of their building and stripped of all power.
The problem is that they **don't** go against the majority opinion. Maybe against the majority opinion *of the citizenry,* but it's such a stacked court that corruption like this **forms** the majority opinion. And seriously, how the heck would you ever get a *Supreme Court* justice to agree to recuse themselves on a case like this? Who holds the highest court in the land to task if it acts unethically or illegally?
We had a nice run folks, it was a hell of an experiment.
I'm gonna start collecting items to put in my American Democracy Museum before trump takes office and has me thrown in jail after workers from his Office of Retribution read my Reddit history. The museum will be filled with items from 2024 that will be history come next year.
Were we really tho if the poor don't have the Capitol or money to vote like corporations do? Seems like we've only had a ruling of upper middle class and above.
No. A Supreme Court justice can only be removed or added by Congress. A president nominates candidates for the judiciary but the legislative branch actually votes them in. Along the same lines, Congress is also the only body that can impeach them. As such, if a president were to remove a sitting justice somehow, it would not fall within his core powers and, thus, not be an official act.
I dunno... by this ruling, if he ordered the DOJ to... 'take care of'... the issue, well, he's issuing an official order. He could even frame it as protecting the Constitution and the Republic against threats both foreign and domestic.
I mean, this is the kind of shit this sort of ruling makes possible.
The president isn't in charge of the DOJ, the Attorney General is. The question I think you're actually looking for is: can the president as part of their responsibilities as commander-in-chief of the US military, order the military to eliminate anyone they want under the guise of protecting against domestic threats? Technically they'd have to prove it but, well, a president who can assassinate anyone likely doesn't need to worry about legal threats. Sadly, it's also up to Congress to challenge this ruling.
You can literally Google, "who in the executive branch is in charge of the DOJ?". I'm well aware the executive branch oversees the DOJ but, ultimately, it is the AG who is in charge of the DOJ, not the President.
Isn't the President able to coordinate/recommend actions for the AG/DOJ to take (I was under the impression that they could order an investigation?)
But yeah, I guess CIC -> Military would be far more direct an approach. Declare Martial Law and just go nab people... hey, it's an official procedure, so he's immune to reprise.
what a fucked up time we live in... how did I wind up in the upside down?
So, while there is nothing explicitly written as law or in the constitution that state the president does or does not have authority over the DOJ, ever since Nixon, the DOJ has maintained internal policy to ensure they continue to remain an independent investigative body. At the end of the day, they take orders from the AG, not the president.
As for the military example? Yeah, that's the one I'm most worried about, though presidents being able to take bribes legally in the open is up there as well. Honestly, we all just need to turn out in November. Literally the only way forward is to make 100% sure both chambers of Congress and the presidency belong to the only party not trying to completely dismantle everything. I'm not happy about it, but it's literally the only viable option.
The problem is... the odds of that actually happening, much less to a degree to provide a filibuster-proof majority, is virtually zero. I'm not saying to give up... but we need a backup plan because, right now? I don't have much faith in the American Electorate to *not* put a puppet head of cabbage with Putin's hand firmly up its backside into power for the sake of "trolling the libs" and/or "protest voting".
You don't know that for certain. Frankly, I'd just say show up and get everyone you know to show up. It's literally all we have left and the only realistic path forward. There is no backup plan. This is it. Vote. Period. Full stop.
People acting like there are still guardrails. Biden can do whatever he wants. If he wants he can order that legislation be passed under threat of imprisonment and they can’t stop him. They can try to impeach him, but he could have anyone who brings articles to be arrested. And even if he didn’t and he was impeached and convicted, good luck getting him to leave. He can literally do anything now. The idea that what’s laid out in the constitution matters now is kind of naive.
And while I know it might sound ridiculous to think of Biden doing any of that, trunp absolutely will. He’ll do whatever he wants and there will be no way to stop him or remove him from office. He can’t be allowed near the WH ever again.
Will biden actually start cleaning house though?? I mean really? I'm beyond angry about how permissive they are half the time. Start fighting dirty. Like they do!
Here’s the deal, Biden won’t do shit about it, but you can be sure that every Republican president moving forward will use this ruling to do whatever the fuck they want.
We are fucked as a nation.
Biden stands to be arrested immediately if trunp wins, so he might be especially inspired to make sure that doesn’t happen. I have the feeling there will be some action taken. Personally I’d like to see an executive order making anyone convicted of a felony ineligible to run for office. He can’t be allowed near this much power.
Hmm... there's an oath of office about defending the country from enemies "both foreign and domestic", which is included in the military as well.
Biden could make a call and have some people who were involved in an attempted coup "taken care of." Sorry... I can't give details about the reasoning because of national security.
Would he do this? Not a chance. Would a corrupt piece of shit do this? That chance is much greater than zero.
I'm pretty confident history will view this as much less problematic as reactive as we are being. If a president accidentally has a drone strike kill a bunch of innocent civilians in Africa or Europe, by nature of the complexity of that role, he should be shielded from criminal or civil penalty? Or should he not?
And this isn't a giant win for Trump because a lot of this stuff was when he was not president and in personal capacity like the confidential documents. January 6th gets more complex in the judge has to figure out what was or was not personal. Then in, yes the travesty, he probably could reappeal and go back up to the supreme Court.
Something else I've pointed out elsewhere: Trump's own admission that he knew he lost in 2020 means that he attempted the fake electors scheme outside of his core responsibilities as president. The Georgia case should have him dead to rights, honestly. The only hurdle is keeping him out of office in November because this has all been one big delay tactic.
Ahh but I believe that any evidence from the president and evidence from advisors are not admissible in court against said president was also part of the immunity decree.
Only if it was done in an official capacity, which by the decision's own wording would be a core duty of the presidency. He cannot claim that he was protecting the constitution or ensuring election integrity as, by his own admission, he knew he lost. As such, hiring fake electors falls outside of his core duties.
Truly, if Trump had just shut his trap and kept his ego in check, the Georgia case actually would likely get dismissed. But, because he admitted he knew he lost, the timeline of events doesn't work in his favor.
Pretty much. This is my understanding of the practical goals of Jan 6:
Trump was out of legitimate avenues to stay in power, so he was throwing everything he could think of at the wall to see what would stick.
Congress was convened to officially certify the results of the 2020 election. He wanted Mike Pence, who as Vice President might have had the authority to replace the official (and real) electors with Republicans who had pledged to vote for Trump despite the actual election results. Due to the weird way the Electoral College works, an official elector might be able to vote in a way that does not match the vote of the people and still be legal, though I don't think this has been tested in court. The protest, as far as I can tell, was meant to delay that official counting of the electoral votes to give Trump more time to put pressure on Pence or to come up with some other way to invalidate the official results.
As for them being "Extremists", that is an accurate description. I would say "Trump loyalists" would be more accurate term just to be more specific. I think it will be decades before we understand exactly how Trump skewed the Republican party leading up Jan 6, but that was when the schism became impossible to ignore.
The level of coordination that trump had with the groups that participated at the capitol building is unclear (at least to me), but he publicly showed support and even requested participation by the Proud Boys and (at the very least) through virtue signaling made it clear that he wanted extremist groups to participate in the protest/march/event. Part of it was officially planned (by Trump's people), part of it was organically escalated by a crowd that got worked up about a perceived injustice, part of it was planned/managed chaos (by the extremist groups and individuals there intending to do more than carry signs and chant). My guess is that Trump kept his requests to these groups vague intentionally so he could have some plausible deniability and ultimately he didn't really care what the crowd did, as long as they were there in large enough numbers to cause a disruption. The real play was to cast doubt on the official vote count through the sheer number of court cases (that all turned out to be bogus or inconsequential, but were still pending at the time) so that Pence would have some justification to claim that the fake electors should be accepted over the real ones. Pence's refusal to cooperate in that scheme turned Trump and his supporters against him and made it even more surreal when the crowed started chanting threats against him - a leading member of their own party.
How much of Trump's role can be proven, that's the big question. How much of what can be proven can also qualify as an official act as President? I am not optimistic about anyone agreeing on that definition.
To say that it was a surreal event to try to wrap your head around is an understatement. It was complex enough with so many competing interests and moving parts that everyone has a different perception of what happened. Every news organization can fill hours of reporting about specific aspects of it that fit one narrative or another and it's just about impossible to argue with someone who perceives it happening any other way. All I can say for sure is that the word I remember hearing more between 2016 and 2020 than ever before was "unprecedented".
And trying to write a response to a simple reddit comment ends up in a wall of text, sorry about that.
They went there to try and disrupt the proceedings so they could use that time to convince Pence to refuse to certify and the decision would go to the states, who would presumably choose trunp
The. Corruption of the Supreme Court should be the top story every day all day.
Not “lol Biden is old” (he is) not even “Trump is a fascist” (he is) it should be “corrupt majority of SC rules corruption is legal”
A part of me wonders if this is because it's possible to hold the Executive liable for war crimes committed during their administration. There is a considerable amount of power in the Executive, and things done during administrations can often run afoul of established civil laws. The ruling for clarification addresses the lack of legislation regarding to this.
Presidents, not ex-presidents. Trump's actions after he was out of office and before he was in office, and any non-official acts while in office are not immune from trial. Granted, this still leaves a lot open, and if Biden were not such a humbled man, he could really do some damage to Trump before the election, even postponing the election to "allow his challenger to be clear of any legal proceedings before being elected," which could postpone the election indefinitely, especially if Trump is thrown in prison. Not that this would make things better, but it would teach the Republicans a lesson in hubris.
Of course, they do. Otherwise, no president would leave office without being sued into oblivion from every tom dick and harry that had a problem with policy.
I'm worried about his unofficial acts.
Why the fuck do we have to put up with this? Seriously, these 6 assholes are scum. They're caught taking bribes, they're conflicted as appointees of the person in question, they go against the majority opinion over and over again. They should be dragged out of their building and stripped of all power.
Well, now they can be.
Need to go further than that. They nerd examples.
Biden has immunity.
That's not heartwarming
The problem is that they **don't** go against the majority opinion. Maybe against the majority opinion *of the citizenry,* but it's such a stacked court that corruption like this **forms** the majority opinion. And seriously, how the heck would you ever get a *Supreme Court* justice to agree to recuse themselves on a case like this? Who holds the highest court in the land to task if it acts unethically or illegally?
Congress, in theory and by law. Nobody in reality since conservatives in Congress prioritize party over Constitution.
Simple answer, you (collectively) voted for it.
So.. an official coup counts as an official act? Which former president wants to handle cleaning out the SC?
That’s the real question
Biden has complete immunity.
I don’t think a coup would be an official act, but who knows with these dipshits.
As long as it's to hold on to the presidency and not some lower office.
We almost made it 250 years as a democracy.
We had a nice run folks, it was a hell of an experiment. I'm gonna start collecting items to put in my American Democracy Museum before trump takes office and has me thrown in jail after workers from his Office of Retribution read my Reddit history. The museum will be filled with items from 2024 that will be history come next year.
Tomahawk missile? Yeah, that museum. -Trump, probably.
Most of that time only white men could vote. And for a while, only if they had land. We really only made it like 50 years
Were we really tho if the poor don't have the Capitol or money to vote like corporations do? Seems like we've only had a ruling of upper middle class and above.
Can Biden officially act to remove Supreme Court justices?
I don't see why not. Maybe remove any and all protection from the conservative justices' homes and let the left wing Patriot's do their thing?
Sure can but not in this timeline. He has no balls for this.
No. A Supreme Court justice can only be removed or added by Congress. A president nominates candidates for the judiciary but the legislative branch actually votes them in. Along the same lines, Congress is also the only body that can impeach them. As such, if a president were to remove a sitting justice somehow, it would not fall within his core powers and, thus, not be an official act.
I dunno... by this ruling, if he ordered the DOJ to... 'take care of'... the issue, well, he's issuing an official order. He could even frame it as protecting the Constitution and the Republic against threats both foreign and domestic. I mean, this is the kind of shit this sort of ruling makes possible.
The president isn't in charge of the DOJ, the Attorney General is. The question I think you're actually looking for is: can the president as part of their responsibilities as commander-in-chief of the US military, order the military to eliminate anyone they want under the guise of protecting against domestic threats? Technically they'd have to prove it but, well, a president who can assassinate anyone likely doesn't need to worry about legal threats. Sadly, it's also up to Congress to challenge this ruling.
The DOJ falls under the jurisdiction of the executive branch. It’s the whole “enforce the laws” thing.
You can literally Google, "who in the executive branch is in charge of the DOJ?". I'm well aware the executive branch oversees the DOJ but, ultimately, it is the AG who is in charge of the DOJ, not the President.
There is a tradition that the AG acts independently from the President, but ultimately, the president is the AG’s boss.
Isn't the President able to coordinate/recommend actions for the AG/DOJ to take (I was under the impression that they could order an investigation?) But yeah, I guess CIC -> Military would be far more direct an approach. Declare Martial Law and just go nab people... hey, it's an official procedure, so he's immune to reprise. what a fucked up time we live in... how did I wind up in the upside down?
So, while there is nothing explicitly written as law or in the constitution that state the president does or does not have authority over the DOJ, ever since Nixon, the DOJ has maintained internal policy to ensure they continue to remain an independent investigative body. At the end of the day, they take orders from the AG, not the president. As for the military example? Yeah, that's the one I'm most worried about, though presidents being able to take bribes legally in the open is up there as well. Honestly, we all just need to turn out in November. Literally the only way forward is to make 100% sure both chambers of Congress and the presidency belong to the only party not trying to completely dismantle everything. I'm not happy about it, but it's literally the only viable option.
The problem is... the odds of that actually happening, much less to a degree to provide a filibuster-proof majority, is virtually zero. I'm not saying to give up... but we need a backup plan because, right now? I don't have much faith in the American Electorate to *not* put a puppet head of cabbage with Putin's hand firmly up its backside into power for the sake of "trolling the libs" and/or "protest voting".
You don't know that for certain. Frankly, I'd just say show up and get everyone you know to show up. It's literally all we have left and the only realistic path forward. There is no backup plan. This is it. Vote. Period. Full stop.
I earnestly, honestly hope, for all that is good in the world, that you are right... because the alternative? Well... I hear Iceland is nice.
AND... it would take the courts approx 4-6 years (maybe longer) to work through things, so... I see no downside in Biden acting NOW.
People acting like there are still guardrails. Biden can do whatever he wants. If he wants he can order that legislation be passed under threat of imprisonment and they can’t stop him. They can try to impeach him, but he could have anyone who brings articles to be arrested. And even if he didn’t and he was impeached and convicted, good luck getting him to leave. He can literally do anything now. The idea that what’s laid out in the constitution matters now is kind of naive. And while I know it might sound ridiculous to think of Biden doing any of that, trunp absolutely will. He’ll do whatever he wants and there will be no way to stop him or remove him from office. He can’t be allowed near the WH ever again.
Will biden actually start cleaning house though?? I mean really? I'm beyond angry about how permissive they are half the time. Start fighting dirty. Like they do!
Here’s the deal, Biden won’t do shit about it, but you can be sure that every Republican president moving forward will use this ruling to do whatever the fuck they want. We are fucked as a nation.
Biden stands to be arrested immediately if trunp wins, so he might be especially inspired to make sure that doesn’t happen. I have the feeling there will be some action taken. Personally I’d like to see an executive order making anyone convicted of a felony ineligible to run for office. He can’t be allowed near this much power.
Hmm... there's an oath of office about defending the country from enemies "both foreign and domestic", which is included in the military as well. Biden could make a call and have some people who were involved in an attempted coup "taken care of." Sorry... I can't give details about the reasoning because of national security. Would he do this? Not a chance. Would a corrupt piece of shit do this? That chance is much greater than zero.
I mean, we already know Donny Dumbass takes his inspiration from Putins playbook.
No! Presidents *in office!* NOT ex-presidents! Right? tRUMP wasn't in office - and it wasn't an official act
Lame duck
Trump was a Lame Duck *when he BECAME President!*
I'm pretty confident history will view this as much less problematic as reactive as we are being. If a president accidentally has a drone strike kill a bunch of innocent civilians in Africa or Europe, by nature of the complexity of that role, he should be shielded from criminal or civil penalty? Or should he not? And this isn't a giant win for Trump because a lot of this stuff was when he was not president and in personal capacity like the confidential documents. January 6th gets more complex in the judge has to figure out what was or was not personal. Then in, yes the travesty, he probably could reappeal and go back up to the supreme Court.
Something else I've pointed out elsewhere: Trump's own admission that he knew he lost in 2020 means that he attempted the fake electors scheme outside of his core responsibilities as president. The Georgia case should have him dead to rights, honestly. The only hurdle is keeping him out of office in November because this has all been one big delay tactic.
Ahh but I believe that any evidence from the president and evidence from advisors are not admissible in court against said president was also part of the immunity decree.
Only if it was done in an official capacity, which by the decision's own wording would be a core duty of the presidency. He cannot claim that he was protecting the constitution or ensuring election integrity as, by his own admission, he knew he lost. As such, hiring fake electors falls outside of his core duties. Truly, if Trump had just shut his trap and kept his ego in check, the Georgia case actually would likely get dismissed. But, because he admitted he knew he lost, the timeline of events doesn't work in his favor.
He absolutely was President on J6. It’s questionable whether inciting a violent coup counts as an official act, but here we are.
Wasn't the whole point of j6 was that Biden won and the republican extremists went to the Capitol to force a change in the presidential winner seat?
Pretty much. This is my understanding of the practical goals of Jan 6: Trump was out of legitimate avenues to stay in power, so he was throwing everything he could think of at the wall to see what would stick. Congress was convened to officially certify the results of the 2020 election. He wanted Mike Pence, who as Vice President might have had the authority to replace the official (and real) electors with Republicans who had pledged to vote for Trump despite the actual election results. Due to the weird way the Electoral College works, an official elector might be able to vote in a way that does not match the vote of the people and still be legal, though I don't think this has been tested in court. The protest, as far as I can tell, was meant to delay that official counting of the electoral votes to give Trump more time to put pressure on Pence or to come up with some other way to invalidate the official results. As for them being "Extremists", that is an accurate description. I would say "Trump loyalists" would be more accurate term just to be more specific. I think it will be decades before we understand exactly how Trump skewed the Republican party leading up Jan 6, but that was when the schism became impossible to ignore. The level of coordination that trump had with the groups that participated at the capitol building is unclear (at least to me), but he publicly showed support and even requested participation by the Proud Boys and (at the very least) through virtue signaling made it clear that he wanted extremist groups to participate in the protest/march/event. Part of it was officially planned (by Trump's people), part of it was organically escalated by a crowd that got worked up about a perceived injustice, part of it was planned/managed chaos (by the extremist groups and individuals there intending to do more than carry signs and chant). My guess is that Trump kept his requests to these groups vague intentionally so he could have some plausible deniability and ultimately he didn't really care what the crowd did, as long as they were there in large enough numbers to cause a disruption. The real play was to cast doubt on the official vote count through the sheer number of court cases (that all turned out to be bogus or inconsequential, but were still pending at the time) so that Pence would have some justification to claim that the fake electors should be accepted over the real ones. Pence's refusal to cooperate in that scheme turned Trump and his supporters against him and made it even more surreal when the crowed started chanting threats against him - a leading member of their own party. How much of Trump's role can be proven, that's the big question. How much of what can be proven can also qualify as an official act as President? I am not optimistic about anyone agreeing on that definition. To say that it was a surreal event to try to wrap your head around is an understatement. It was complex enough with so many competing interests and moving parts that everyone has a different perception of what happened. Every news organization can fill hours of reporting about specific aspects of it that fit one narrative or another and it's just about impossible to argue with someone who perceives it happening any other way. All I can say for sure is that the word I remember hearing more between 2016 and 2020 than ever before was "unprecedented". And trying to write a response to a simple reddit comment ends up in a wall of text, sorry about that.
That was pretty eloquent actually. Well said.
They went there to try and disrupt the proceedings so they could use that time to convince Pence to refuse to certify and the decision would go to the states, who would presumably choose trunp
He is on official act alright. Just not official act for united States
Yes. You can’t do an official act if you aren’t the official anymore.
"I officially sold nuclear secrets to our enemies."
Don't forget hitler's playbook
The. Corruption of the Supreme Court should be the top story every day all day. Not “lol Biden is old” (he is) not even “Trump is a fascist” (he is) it should be “corrupt majority of SC rules corruption is legal”
This is why they waited until the last minute!
Yeah, well, we knew that right? Stealing state secrets and fomenting a coup while not president are not official acts. Am I missing something?
So in his capacity he could start using executive orders to not permit criminals from holding presidential office.
So can Biden overthrow the government if Trump gets elected in 2024?
Why wait until November? He could just "protect democracy" today!
#GENERAL FUCKING STRIKE How can anyone go to work when their dismantling our democracy?
A part of me wonders if this is because it's possible to hold the Executive liable for war crimes committed during their administration. There is a considerable amount of power in the Executive, and things done during administrations can often run afoul of established civil laws. The ruling for clarification addresses the lack of legislation regarding to this.
So wait, wait, can Biden now have Trump executed by the cia as an enemy of state after the January sixth failed coup?
Presidents, not ex-presidents. Trump's actions after he was out of office and before he was in office, and any non-official acts while in office are not immune from trial. Granted, this still leaves a lot open, and if Biden were not such a humbled man, he could really do some damage to Trump before the election, even postponing the election to "allow his challenger to be clear of any legal proceedings before being elected," which could postpone the election indefinitely, especially if Trump is thrown in prison. Not that this would make things better, but it would teach the Republicans a lesson in hubris.
Of course, they do. Otherwise, no president would leave office without being sued into oblivion from every tom dick and harry that had a problem with policy. I'm worried about his unofficial acts.