Trump lawyers tell Supreme Court that Constitution doesn’t apply to the president
Trump lawyers tell Supreme Court that Constitution doesn’t apply to the president
No buddy, the Constitution is supposed to protect the people from fuck nuggets like Trump.
You heard the lawyer, no life, liberty or happiness for Trump.
That's the Declaration of Independence.
Then why did he swear an oath to it both times he was sworn in?
He did not put his hands on the Bible for a reason
Because it burns?
That's not really a part of it
I’ve read you don’t really need to. As long as you uphold the law. It’s fine.
Because he knew nobody would actually enforce it.
Imagine if a Biden lawyer has made that argument.
You don't need to. Obama wore a tan suit like a male model and the GOP shat a forest of redwoods.
Gee, maybe the Supreme Court shouldn't have set that precedent for him.
I'm just as frustrated and horrified by what's going on as everyone else, but this headline is SUCH a stretch. Like, 98% click bait, 2% kinda-sorta truth. PLEASE read the actual article and not just the headline.
This story is about a specific legal mechanism (universal injunction) that has been used by federal judges in dozens of cases throughout decades. It's a controversial mechanism that has been used on both sides of the political spectrum. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. It's currently being used to pause some of Trump's worst bullshit.
Trump's lawyers are arguing that this very specific mechanism shouldn't be permitted in current cases regarding immigration. They've also argued that this particular mechanism is unconstitutional. His lawyers are wrong, and shitty, but they are in no way arguing that "the constitution doesn't apply to the president."
This story is about a specific legal mechanism (universal injunction) that has been used by federal judges in dozens of cases throughout decades. It’s a controversial mechanism that has been used on both sides of the political spectrum.
And it's also necessary to allow the courts to keep the justice system from getting overwhelmed. Without nationwide injunctions, it would lead to courts being swamped with hundreds of thousands of lawsuits from individual citizens instead of just dealing with a handful of lawsuits meant to represent people nationwide.
The lack of nationwide injunctions also means that the government would be able to trample on the rights of poor people with impunity, knowing that they very likely wouldn't have the knowledge, money, or resources needed to seek relief from the courts. They would also have the comfort of knowing they can continue trampling on their rights for years while these individual cases make their way through a bogged down court system.
Constitutional protections would only essentially be available to those with the money and resources to have legal representation. The Trump administration was basically arguing that they have the right to trample on the rights of those who cannot afford to defend themselves, and no federal judge should be able to stop them.
Trump’s lawyers are arguing that this very specific mechanism shouldn’t be permitted in current cases regarding immigration.
Actually, no. His lawyers are arguing that this mechanism shouldn't be permitted at all. That's the whole point of this case to begin with. The case itself is patently unconstitutional on its face. But the underlying goal -- the essential neutering of judicial review -- is the real prize. That's what this case is about.
They’ve also argued that this particular mechanism is unconstitutional. His lawyers are wrong, and shitty, but they are in no way arguing that “the constitution doesn’t apply to the president.”
Actually, they are. First, as I said above, the Trump administration is literally asking for the right to ignore Constitutional amendments and the rights granted by the Constitution. They're asking the Supreme Court to say that Trump can issue unconstitutional executive orders and that the courts have little to no right to judicial review or to do anything about it.
And more importantly, they literally admitted that the only court they're going to even listen to is the Supreme Court. Maybe.
They literally admitted, after being repeatedly questioned over it and after many attempts at tapdancing around it, that they have no intention of listening to lower courts and would abide by Supreme Court rulings that they agree with.
So yes. They absolutely are arguing that the Constitution doesn't apply to the President. The headline is accurate.
I agree with everything you said. You CAN draw a logical line from what Trump's lawyers are saying to the conclusion that "Trump lawyers tell Supreme Court that Constitution doesn’t apply to the president." That statement and conclusion is not, technically, factually, incorrect.
However, I do feel like using that statement as a headline strips away all the context and nuance, leaving nothing behind but rage-inductive click-bait. That headline gives no meaningful information, and if someone takes it as literal truth, without reading the rest of the story, they will be massively uninformed about what's actually going on. It's a disservice to the reader.
I guess that includes the Bill of Rights?
Next Democrat president better be a dictator handing out gulags to racists while putting money into lgbt causes. Trump says the president has dictatorial power, fucking go for it then.
I honestly can't tell if these people believe their own bullshit or just this craven.
"All men are created equal". Some are more equal than others it seems.
Looking from pig to man and man to pig, impossible to tell which is which
Sounds like he wants a military coupe? I mean if it doesn't apply to the President you're not really in charge of the military.
That's the document literally describing what a president is and what it can do... Claiming it "doesn't apply" is not even a coherent argument
Guess he shouldn't have taken the oath... Twice. The masses won't care.
Well, I feel like the Supreme Court brought this upon themselves. They made Trump untouchable and now he's using what they gave him.
Yeah. As utterly stupid as the argument sounds, he can't be prosecuted for any official acts and he can pardon anyone who enacts his will, so his administration can deny anyone their constitutional rights and escape accountability.
That's not the same as saying folks don't have rights, but effectively they can be denied any meaningful opportunity to exercise them, without consequence. Someone has a right to a trial? You and what army are going to get to his cell to take them before a judge? No army? Then good luck getting him to court because anyone preventing you from doing so is immune to legal action and anyone NOT preventing you is fired.
The Supreme Court has issued some terrible rulings in the last twenty years. "Democracy is autocracy" is some 1984-level shit.
Only for federal charges. If people are breaking state laws to push his agenda, he cannot pardon them. It's a little thing, but it's something.
It's the job of Congress to hold the president accountable.