The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially

[chuang]

I thought Thailand is bad..

USA is worst 😞 

[herfiehandbag]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sigh. If a lower court rules it was not an "official act" it's a crime and they can be prosecuted.

Unfortunately it would probably give presidents like Bush the younger immunity for taking America to war against Iraq on a lie, though they seem to have been acting as though that were always the situation.

The ruling that it was not an official act will be challenged, and overturned.

[parallelman]

Not quite how I read this SC decision. Wouldn't 'official acts' have to be duly noted, discussed with relevant personnel, recorded in the official / executive records etc.? That is to say in an extreme case scenario, that any president wanting to assassinate anyone the action would have to be discussed and recorded as an official pert of the president's daily/weekly routine. If the official procedure is not followed then the act would then be 'unofficial' and thereby open to prosecution. For example, I am sure the 'assassination' of terrorists leaders would be discussed by the president with the appropriate military dept. and recorded. In the case of eliminating one's political opponents I don't think a leader in any country would want it officially known.

[Presto]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sigh. If a lower court rules it was not an "official act" it's a crime and they can be prosecuted.

Unfortunately it would probably give presidents like Bush the younger immunity for taking America to war against Iraq on a lie, though they seem to have been acting as though that were always the situation.

If a lower court rules it was not an 'official act', that ruling can be appealed until it teaches the Supreme Court. 

Where these same 6 people that wrote this ruling on immunity last week, might very well decide, especially if it regards a president of their liking, that it was an official act.

And then it simply stops right there. Correct?

[YouAgain]

1 minute ago, parallelman said:

In the case of eliminating one's political opponents I don't think a leader in any country would want it officially known

Wrong.  

 

If all your cabinet members are yes men, and even if they aren't, then any action taken by the president as part of 'defending the country' would/could be construed as official duties.  Doesn't matter if known or not. 

 

It's a cluster<deleted> and could be the unweaving of the U.S....

 

 

[HappyExpat57]

Why can't we get all those fact checkers together to give us honest information? Maybe we could call it "The News?"

[Mavideol]

isn't the US Supreme Court supposed to be NON-partisan, if so, why are they placed there by acting presidents, regardless Reps or Dems, they should be elected not assigned/designated by a party, sure they always side with whoever puts them there... and it's called democracy, nobody above the law my axx

 

Isn't that dark skin guy one of the must corrupted ones, receiving cars, apartments, cruises, trips to exotic (very expensive) places, his wife a Trump lover (he likes them with some extra meat)

[YouAgain]

8 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Why can't we get all those fact checkers together

 

Here's the problem.  The U.S. has a tricameral system.  The supreme court has no current ethical rules that have any bite, no term limits, and current court has zero checks other than passage of new laws that might get overturned by supreme court anyway.  

 

So it's a complete mess.  There is a solution to increase size of supreme court to 13, which I think Joe should do, cause heir Drumpf will do it anyway.  Then Senate could hurry through the US Supreme court nominees with Senate at 50-50 and VP tie breaker. 

 

Nominate 4 liberal judges, approve them before november with VP tiebreaker, then reverse the garbage passed by MAGA nuts judges.  

 

Time to get serious.  

[parallelman]

21 minutes ago, YouAgain said:

Wrong.  

 

If all your cabinet members are yes men, and even if they aren't, then any action taken by the president as part of 'defending the country' would/could be construed as official duties.  Doesn't matter if known or not. 

 

It's a cluster<deleted> and could be the unweaving of the U.S....

 

 

I was not commenting on any persons involved but the official standard procedure. Aren't 'cabinet meetings' recorded? I thought such things were standard procedure. Isn't it the case that committees often want to see the records of this & that and to find out who said what, who voted against etc.

[johng]

23 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Maybe we could call it "The News?"

Here is the news...

A cure's been found for good ole rocket lag,someone left their life behind in a plastic bag....ahhhhhhh.

[BobBKK]

USA has been assassinating folk for years - some maybe deserved it, but it's nothing new. Ask Obama.

[parallelman]

6 minutes ago, YouAgain said:

 

Here's the problem.  The U.S. has a tricameral system.  The supreme court has no current ethical rules that have any bite, no term limits, and current court has zero checks other than passage of new laws that might get overturned by supreme court anyway.  

 

So it's a complete mess.  There is a solution to increase size of supreme court to 13, which I think Joe should do, cause heir Drumpf will do it anyway.  Then Senate could hurry through the US Supreme court nominees with Senate at 50-50 and VP tie breaker. 

 

Nominate 4 liberal judges, approve them before november with VP tiebreaker, then reverse the garbage passed by MAGA nuts judges.  

 

Time to get serious.  

All you are saying is that you want the majority to be liberals and not conservative.

[YouAgain]

1 minute ago, parallelman said:

l you are saying is that you want the majority to be liberals and not conservative

What I am saying is that I want the remnants at least of democracy, from which we can rebuild, as opposed to a dictatorship with a complete idiot and megalomaniac at the top. 

[YouAgain]

6 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

it's nothing new

Time for a new one.  Heir Drumpf and family.  It's legal now, the supreme court just said so.  Be careful what you ask for man, cause you might just get it. 

[Hanaguma]

6 minutes ago, YouAgain said:

Time for a new one.  Heir Drumpf and family.  It's legal now, the supreme court just said so.  Be careful what you ask for man, cause you might just get it. 

Ah, yet more of the veiled Nazi references. Charming.   Especially when used against a man with Jews in his family.  Nothing but class, YouAgain. Nothing but class. 

 

BTW, if you are going to try and use German words as an insult, at least take the time to look them up and spell them correctly. Thanks.

[parallelman]

5 minutes ago, YouAgain said:

What I am saying is that I want the remnants at least of democracy, from which we can rebuild, as opposed to a dictatorship with a complete idiot and megalomaniac at the top. 

No what you said is that you want 4 more in the SC and all liberal. You want to change from 9 to 13 but I did not make any remarks regarding your political opinion...maybe you have some affinity for the number 13 but not 9. Is it that 13 is a prime and 9 isn't?

[FritsSikkink]

8 hours ago, Crossy said:

 

Do you have a link to a reputable news site please?

Here you go:

 

What is presidential immunity? Supreme Court’s Trump ruling, explained. - The Washington Post

[YouAgain]

7 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

BTW, if you are going to try and use German words as an insult, at least take the time to look them up and spell them correctly. Thanks.

Sadly you make lots of noise and have no idea WTF you are talking about. 

 

Donald Trump’s grandfather, Friedrich Trump – born Friedrich Drumpf – emigrated to the US from Germany in 1885 at the age of 16

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, trainman34014 said:

Well; Trump has been threatening to destroy all his Political Opponents if he wins and now he has the legal tools to do it.   God save the USA and Vote for Biden.    And i'm not even American !

Even Putin must be left scratching his head to see USA a step ahead in destroying their political enemies. Must be wondering why he didn't think of that. 

[rwill]

Has anyone read the actual decision.  They did not say a president is immune from prosecution for anything he does. 

 

"Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, rejected Trump's broad immunity claims and said Trump has immunity only for his "official" acts as president. The high court did not determine what constitutes an official act in this case, leaving that to the lower court."

 

Trump has some immunity in D.C. election interference case, Supreme Court rules: Highlights (nbcnews.com)

[wwest5829]

So, President of the United States, President Biden is now free to declare Donald J. Trump as a clear and present danger to the national security of the USA and order him sent to Gitmo for imprisonment or … shoot him on 5th Avenue. He does this as an upholding of his Oath of Office to defend against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. Under the new SCOTUS ruling, acting as President he is immune from being held responsibile for any seeming breach of the law. No, President Biden would take no such step being mindful of such a precedent. Ex President Trump, conversely, has publicly stated he will go after those who have taken legal action against him, If he is elected to the Office of President. Good luck Americans … you chose to elect primarily Republicans (ex. McConnell R-KY), et. al. that chose the last 3 “conservative” Justices.

[Hanaguma]

13 minutes ago, YouAgain said:

Sadly you make lots of noise and have no idea WTF you are talking about. 

 

Donald Trump’s grandfather, Friedrich Trump – born Friedrich Drumpf – emigrated to the US from Germany in 1885 at the age of 16

Yes, and i am sure that is what you were referencing with your tiny fisted tantrum, eh? 

[wwest5829]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wasn't aware that Trump has been found guilty of trying to overthrow the government. Any facts from a reputable source to back that up? They've had 3 years to convict him on that, but they haven't, have they?

You are correct … “they” have not convicted as yet. You are misleading in that this case is still working its way through the courts, given the delaying tactics by DJT’s legal team. As to reputable source? Ah, the evidence in the case resulting in the criminal indictment on which the case will eventually be tried before a citizen jury … that is, unless Trump is elected. In which case, given the SCOTUS he can dismiss the case or pardon himself (an enumerated Presidential power). Ha! That action taken to court but I will not live to see that decision by a different SCOTUS … and several of the current justices will also die of old age before the decision …

[Presto]

53 minutes ago, YouAgain said:

 

Here's the problem.  The U.S. has a tricameral system.  The supreme court has no current ethical rules that have any bite, no term limits, and current court has zero checks other than passage of new laws that might get overturned by supreme court anyway.  

 

So it's a complete mess.  There is a solution to increase size of supreme court to 13, which I think Joe should do, cause heir Drumpf will do it anyway.  Then Senate could hurry through the US Supreme court nominees with Senate at 50-50 and VP tie breaker. 

 

Nominate 4 liberal judges, approve them before november with VP tiebreaker, then reverse the garbage passed by MAGA nuts judges.  

 

Time to get serious.  

Too late to get serious. Democrats (yes I'm looking at them, not at the Republicans) have let the flaws in American democracy slide by for so long, it will really bite them now, and all they can do is complaining.

Don't expect any serious action from Biden, it's who Democrats are stuck with, through their own stupidity.

Biden is an institutionalist as it seems to be called, I call it: he's stuck in the past. No ability to look to the future and take appropriate action.

If you take all these developments of the last 7 years or so, the American empire is on the way down. First, elect sn obvious corrupt fascist as president. Then, no checks and balances worth mentioning during his reign. Followed by a Democrat government incapable of applying the rule of law to an obvious bunch of coup plotters, even worse the ringleader is allowed to run for the presidency again, like nothing ever happened.

Americans have managed to deliver a choice for them in the voting booth, between a corrupt fascist whose intentions and plans are clear, and a guy with obvious mental decline. And the corrupt fascist will likely win.

And the icing on the cake, a Supreme Court who have declared themselves as the ultimate rulers of the country, and forget about the Constitution please.

 

[wwest5829]

7 hours ago, Gsxrnz said:

Ever wondered why you think the "other side" are so extreme in their social and political views, but never considered that you might be (or might not be) the problem?

 

I encourage everybody to take this simple three-minute test to measure how far left, right, libertarian or authoritarian you are.  Some posters might be surprised how extreme their views are.

 

The Political Compass

 

Most of the people I interact with would define me as a dyed in the wool right-wing authoritarian.  On this test I am just right of centre, and bang in the middle of authoritarianism versus liberalism.

 

My views haven't really changed in 50 years and I am, and always have been a little to the left or right on most issues. I haven't changed, but society now defines me as a Neo-Nazi - go figure.

And as an academic, with degrees in the study of American and European History … I am labeled extreme leftist. And that is why Pol Pot and his ilk “off” the journalists and educated … they present a clear and present danger to authoritarian rule.

[JensenZ]

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Again, the highest court in the land, has proven they prefer to be a kingmaker, over an impartial judiciary. Nobody can doubt where their loyalties lie, nor their allegiance. History may show this court to be one of the least impartial, and one of the most morally bankrupt, in our nation's history. This is a sad moment for America, when the court becomes the hand of the king. The Supreme Court's liberal bloc issued blistering dissents Monday in the Trump immunity ruling, arguing that it "reshapes the institution of the presidency" and "makes a mockery" of the constitutional principle that no man is above the law.

 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reading her dissent from the bench, said that "relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom ... the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more."

 

She added that "because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent." Sotomayor said that the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, invents "an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law."

 

Their ruling, she went on, makes three moves that she said "completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability." Sotomayor said the court creates absolute immunity for the president's exercise of "core constitutional powers," creates "expansive immunity for all 'official acts,'" and "declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him."

 

Sotomayor warned that the ruling "will have disastrous consequences for the Presidency and for our democracy" and that it sends the message: “Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends.”

 

She added, “Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

 

In her own written dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that the majority's ruling "breaks new and dangerous ground." "Departing from the traditional model of individual accountability, the majority has concocted something entirely different: a Presidential accountability model that creates immunity—an exemption from criminal law — applicable only to the most powerful official in our Government," she wrote.

 

Jackson warned that under the majority's "new Presidential accountability mode," a hypothetical president "who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics...or one who indisputably instigates an unsuccessful coup...has a fair shot at getting immunity."

 

The chief justice dismissed the dissents, suggesting that his three liberal colleagues had misinterpreted the majority's opinion and were engaging in "fear mongering." Roberts argued that they "strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today." He wrote that "like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity."

 

He also appeared to scoff at Sotomayor for what she included in her dissent, saying that her "most compelling piece of evidence consists of excerpted statements of Charles Pinckney from an 1800 Senate debate." He continued, "But those statements reflect only the now-discredited argument that any immunity not expressly mentioned in the Constitution must not exist."

 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in a concurring opinion that she agreed with some of the majority opinion but not all of it. Notably, she said she agreed with Sotomayor that Trump’s immune conduct should still be allowed to be used as evidence in his trial.

 

“The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable,” she said.

 

If you insist on copying and pasting editorials, you should do the right thing and include a reference to your source.

[CallumWK]

2 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

Not a country to be proud of😳

 

Just for your info, since you obviously still haven't figured there is no need to quote a full page OP each and every time to add a one-liner comment.

 

 

[BobBKK]

9 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

And as an academic, with degrees in the study of American and European History … I am labeled extreme leftist. And that is why Pol Pot and his ilk “off” the journalists and educated … they present a clear and present danger to authoritarian rule.

 Those who can do, those who can't teach (yes I have degrees too)

[newnative]

     Terrible decision.   

[wwest5829]

2 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

Not a country to be proud of😳

As a student of history, I have taken pride in my documented DNA going back to before the founding of the USA. My forbears were present in each step forward. But, knowing a fair bit of history, it has become more difficult for me to support and defend many things the USA has done domestically and internationally. Should DJT be elected in November, while in diffidence to my heritage I will not denounce my citizenship, the USA will have destroyed any remnant of my support. Reject Trump and his ilk or you sentence the USA as a failing nation. Good luck … for me? I am at an age when I can be at peace with a peaceful passing out of this existence.