The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially
Ranvier @ Ranvier @sopuli.xyz Posts 10Comments 1,027Joined 2 yr. ago
Ranvier @ Ranvier @sopuli.xyz
Posts
10
Comments
1,027
Joined
2 yr. ago
You're right! Even easier. Article 2 power use again, cannot be questioned. Pre emptive pardons for everyone involved. We were all worried about the possibility of Trump self pardoning, but this court has made that possibility seem quaint in comparison to what they've bestowed.
Read the ruling. They're quite clear about the absolute immunity for any use of executive powers granted by the constitution. That includes things like being commander in chief of the military, powers of pardon, appointing and firing of officials, and more! I even linked it for you to read. Don't have to take my word for it. And if you can't figure out the implications of the ruling read justice Sotomayor's and justice Jackson's dissents.
A prosecutor can argue that such an egregious order falls well outside the scope of the office, and constitutes an "unofficial act".
Incorrect, according to this ruling, his use of the military has absolute immunity. It doesn't matter what he's doing with it, they can't even question if it's an official act or not. That only factors in when using powers not delegated in the constitution. You do point out some more absurdities in the majority's ruling though, theoretically a court could hold troops accountable for unlawful orders but could not hold the executive accountable for giving them. Moot point though, who's bringing the charges against the troops in this situation? President has absolute criminal immunity for hiring and firing, just fire any prosecutors whether that's justice department or military justice if they try to do so.
The president does not have the power to order Seal Team 6 to violate the Posse Comitatus act.
Null and void, they specifically state that not only the court doesn't have the power to question, neither does congress. The supreme court just made posse comitatus toilet paper.
The only way out for this mess is replacing the justices or a constitutional ammendment that's says, yes we still have the rule of law for everyone, including the president.
And yes I read the whole thing. And if the majority can't see what they have enabled they're stupid. But I don't think it's stupidity, they're smart people. That only leaves malice. Or some very different political ideals than I hold about the rule of law at least.
I agree, but 6 of the 9 justices of the supreme court don't apparently. It's quite disturbing. Any use of powers delegated to the president in the constitution including thing like use of the military and pardons, is beyond any question according to this ruling.
Use of the military is delegated to him under article 2, his use of that power cannot be questioned. The ruling says what you just described cannot happen. He has absolute immunity for anything he uses that power for. Appointing or firing officials? Article 2, cannot be questioned. Granting pardons? Article 2, cannot be questioned, doesn't matter why he did it.
Only if the president is using some ability or power not specifically delegated in the constitution can a judge even began to decide if it counts as an official act. And then if that does, not quite as good as absolute immunity, but still presumptive immunity.
And it gets even worse! Anything the president did as an "official act" cannot be used against him in court as evidence. So much of the evidence in all the cases he has can no longer be used! If any of the charges survive at all in the first place given this ridiculously broad immunity ruling. This ruling is so bad it may even help him get out his state charges unexpectedly. There's a slim chance some of the charges may live on, but the funny thing about the ruling is it gives even more criminal immunity to some the scariest things the president has the power to do.
If this ruling is terrible for Trump, why does the dissent start out by saying this gives everything Trump asked for and more?!
I'm sorry, but you're just incorrect. Please just read the dissents from the actual constitutional scholars in the ruling though instead of my dumb internet comments trying to summarize. They explain it all much better and more thoroughly.
The first dissent starts on page 68 of the document I linked, and with the very large margins is a surprisingly quick read.
Lawmakers want to know why there are fewer LGBTQ+ homeowners than straight: 'Concerning disparities'
Jump
Here's a link to the actual study:
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/Why_Are_There_Gaps_in_LGBTQ%2B_Homeownership.pdf
Unfortunately the link was broken in the article and the article itself didn't have a lot of detail. I think this led to most of the comments here as saying "oh this is just because such and such factor" which yes of course everything people are saying are all factors and they're specifically listed as factors in the report. But the gap still remained when controlling for those factors too, including lgbt people living in more expensive areas (and even with that, the reason they're in more expensive areas is because those areas have more tolerant policies, also nicely laid out in the report).
They said he has unquestionable absolute immunity for his uses of any power delegated in the constitution. That's why in Sotomayor's dissent she picks these three examples:
When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune
Those are all powers directly derived from article 2 of the constitution, and their use is totally unquestionable by courts according to the majority's ruling now. This also includes an incredibly ambigous phrase "to faithfully execute the nation's laws" which the majority was interpreting as allowing him to do so many things without any question even Barrett dissented to that part.
And it goes further, anything the president generally has the power to do but is not specifically a constitutional power, he gets presumed immunity for.
This is a victory for Trump. They gave Trump everything he asked for and more. And that's not my opinion, that's what Sotomayor herself said in her dissent.
I suggest you read both hers and Jackson's dissent, this is a horrific ruling.
The ruling on presidential immunity today was pretty paradoxical, he has criminal immunity to breaking the law if he argues it's "to take care that laws be faithfully executed." Absolute immunity even since that's right in article 2, so why not?
Don't worry, they effectively ruled it's okay as a hobby as well by gutting the Chevron defense last week to kneecap the EPA and every major federal agency.
From Sotomayor's dissent:
When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Her dissent starts on page 68 of that document, with Jackson's after. It reads faster than you would think with the giant margins, would encourage everyone to take a look if you have a moment.
Re read, and stop setting up straw men. I criticized teaching seven year olds to shoot. Not teaching actual gun safety.
I seperately said it's sad that we have to have the "heroes program" to teach pre schoolers about active shool shooters, because gun nuts don't allow real gun controls or solutions.
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1848971668
People from other countries are shocked and horrified by everything in this thread.
And the "well if it wasn't a gun it'd be something else" yeah guns aren't necessary to kill but it sure makes it a whole lot easier and faster. I don't think this guy could have killed 60 people in ten minutes with a knife:
Stop for one second, re read the conversation, and the link. I'm criticizing teaching 7 year old kids to shoot, not criticizing teaching actual gun safety. That was a straw man you set up to knock down.
Teaching kids to use guns doesn't save kids' lives. If you want to teach em to stay away from guns, that they're deadly, they shouldn't touch it and should tell an adult right away go ahead.
Teaching kids to use guns in the name of gun safety is like saying you need to teach them how to drive in case they find some car keys lying around and decide to take it for a spin.
Already in the comment, click the links.
https://www.safekidsinc.com/hero-program-overview
Here's where it goes through their curriculum per grade level including pre schoolers.
The 'heroes" program is not teaching pre schoolers to use guns, it's teaching them about active shooter situations.
The other link was the one offering actual gun training (for 7 year olds and up so second graders potentially).
My comment was that it's sad we apparently need programs to to teach pre schoolers about how to deal with active shooting situations now.
The one I linked specifically mentions shooting afterwards for kids as young as 7...
But yes if guns are at home they should be locked (and really locked, like a trigger lock plus a safe that's set to something besides 1111, holy crap you'd be surprised at how cavelier some people are) and totally inaccessible to kids. Teaching single digit age kids about guns is not a substitute for that, but of course I'm not saying you shouldn't teach your kids that they shouldn't touch guns and what they can do.
And teaching kids about guns will not solve the serious gun problems in America. The gun problems unique to America that pretty much every other industrialized nation has figured out already. And it's a horrible tragedy that stuff like "the heroes program" to teach preschoolers how to deal with active shooters is necessary in this country. All to please gun nuts.
Most gun nuts aren't too interested in education anyways:
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/01/which-states-require-firearm-safety-course-concealed-carry/
Kindergarten? Ridiculous. They gotta be at least 7.
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
I guess it vaguely looks like this one in terms of the large flat plane in the front. Though it's blade runner, so it's all grungy like pieces are falling off and it's all rusted and junk. Wait maybe cyber truck was inspired by bladeunner.
Doesn't look much like a lot of other cars in the movie though.
Because this chart includes economic aid and it begins in 1946. America was giving some pretty massive economic aid to help with rebuilding after WW2. There's very little military aid to the UK in the chart, it's mostly economic.
Sure I mean give a perfectly normal person a stimulant and they might feel like they have more energy for a bit (though to an observer they might just appear anxious, jittery and amped up even if the person themself feels great). Calling it performance enhancing for something like a debate is a huge stretch. Equally likely to hurt a speaking performance, unless someone maybe actually had true adhd or something.
What I mean is, the narrative being pushed here is Biden is this old man with dementia who can't string two words together, and then he takes adderral or modafinil and suddenly he's magically cognitively normal but just for a few hours. Dementia does not work this way, you would just get a very energetic and equally confused person. It's all a ridiculous fantasy, something for Trump supporters to hold in their heads to help with the cognitive dissonance as they watch the debate. Otherwise they'd be forced to reckon with the fact that Biden speaks like a normal human being with coherent thoughts while Trump sounds like a rambling lunatic on a barely traceable flight of ideas.
I also don't want this false narrative giving people ideas that force feeding their relatives with dementia stimulants would be a good idea that would improve their cognition for a while or something.
Under this ruling the president has absolute immunity for their use of any powers granted by the constitution, and that includes use of the military, pardon powers, and appointing and firing of executive department officials. Their motivations and purposes for use of those powers cannot be questioned by the courts or by any laws passed by congress.
The whole "official" vs "non official" acts things only comes into play for powers not explicitly granted by the constitution. And even then the president gets presumptive immunity.
Go read the actual ruling and the dissents and stop spreading misinformation. The journalist and the headline are accurate.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf