— Musings —07.01.2024 11:43 AM
— Musings —07.01.2024 11:43 AM
Warren,
I believed that, even despite Dobbs, that stare decisis wasn’t dead. Well, today it died. In Trump, presidential immunity is extended to former presidents, which is a legal non sequitur. It could conceivably cover criminal acts undertaken by a president, as long as they were official acts.
Then the court chickens out and bumps the definition back to the lower courts.
Trump should have no immunity during a post-presidency for even official acts undertaken.
Now the war goes to Trump’s speech at The Ellipse on January 6th. Was it an official presidential act related to administrative or Executive matters of state? I think not. At best, it was a private political act not related to Executive action of the presidency. So, there is still hope that lower courts will see it that way. But what’s the point in the end if their decisions are potentially reversed by SCOTUS at a later date?
Then Biden comes out at The White House and reads from the TelePrompter that he D-I-S-S-E-N-T-S. He looks OK and somewhat forceful, but then he blows it! He doesn’t take questions, leaving the impression that he’s not up to taking questions from the press…one step forward, then three steps back. Again.
I think people are over reacting on this one. The way I read it is that the interpretation of what is “official” vs what is “personal”. If a President strays wildly outside the “official” then their conduct could still be criminal.
So, for example, phone calls to overturn election results would not be “official” because the President has no role in election results. Which makes it personal, so potentially criminal. Further, the official receiving the phone call could still ignore it, as was the case in Georgia. Same with the inciting riots etc… clearly not official, so still potentially criminal. These seem to be the main examples that have people wound up.
Conversely, convening a routine cabinet meeting is official, so can’t be criminal.
Am I way off here? Certainly not my area of expertise, but I think people are pressing the panic button a bit too fast.
The American system allows for incredibly generous politically-filtered interpretations of the law in ways that few other nations pull off without devolving into total dictatorship or risking a coup d’etat.
In theory, you’re right. That is the wording of the ruling put out by the conservative Justices.
In practice, every President who fucks up will now just say he did so for national security and skate. The GOP now has the Russian system in place that they so admire.
If there was no Presidential immunity for official acts, could Obama be charged with murder?
Peter,
Definitely not in the case of bin Laden as it was a defensive response (taken by the Commander in Chief) to protect the United States.
Ronald
With no immunity, there are people who would bring bin Laden’s death to trial.
And don’t forget the drone deaths.
Which is why immunity makes sense for the President.
Peter,
IMHO, immunity should apply to the sitting president and only for clearly defined official acts of state.
SCOTUS is a disgrace. It will take some time, but eventually, another SCOTUS will vacate this decision. This decision has absolutely no legal merit. The principles outlined in the previous case law, most particularly Nixon, need to become once again the law of the land.
Every President and Secretary of State since Washington has blood on their hands. Overseeing the military comes with the job. It’s only the last 20 years or so where people started referring to it as “murder,” typically only when it’s a guy they didn’t vote for.
The difference now is that there will be way, way less of a guardrail on things Presidents do domestically.
Yes, but the argument is that it’s murder if a President intentionally kills his own citizen(s) as the accusation against Obama goes:
https://www.aclu.org/video/aclu-ccr-lawsuit-american-boy-killed-us-drone-strike
It’s a legitimate question that Ronald asks.
There’s legitimacy to the question, sure. But it’s a bad faith argument by the majority that would ask it. The primary target of the strikes in question hadn’t set foot on American soil in several years and allegedly tried to blow up a plane. Precious few could look me in the eye with a straight face and say they would prosecute Obama for that strike yet also provide the same expectation of culpability if it happened under Trump.
This is no different from 2009, when the GOP moral panic suddenly arose around military heavy-handedness when it was no longer Bush calling the shots… after God knows how many state-sponsored war crimes took place.
I worked on a farm years ago and in the field was a mound of mouldy old hay. It sat there for 10 years. When first laid out the cows gathered around it and ate and rejoiced at the newness of the hay but as time went by the hays shine disappeared and all that as left was mould and rot. The farmer tasked me with burning the pile and when lit it became shiney and bright again and the cows wandered into the flames happily feeding on the rot ignorant of the fire.
I believe there’s an argument for saying that the President first has to be convicted by Congress before he or she can be tried for that crime based on the way the Founders communicated on the matter. It’s easy to say that Presidents are now above the law, but the other extreme is to allow successors open season on their loathed predecessors (to wit, imagine what a Trump term next year would do with Biden/Obama).
This is also not nearly as illegitimate as the qualified immunity doctrine which says that government officials get a pass on suits/charges for clearly violating the rights of citizens. No where is this enshrined in law. Instead, the courts invented it to take a pass on having to muck through the number of times Trevon Martin-type stories have happened.
Warren,
The drip, drip, daily drip, is destroying the Biden candidacy: a CNN poll shows Trump leading Biden
49% to 43%. My former candidate, Harris, trails Trump by only 47-45%. Harris does better with women (50%) and independents (43%) than Biden does. Hello!
(Please God, make it happen.)
Ronald,
Biden’s departure will be sooner, rather than later.
Not one potential candidate excites the Democrat base.
Which begs the question: who do the donors want?
Or, more importantly, who do they not want?
Anything and everything must be done politically to keep that MAGA POS out of The White House. Hopefully, Harris can do that.
Well, apparently Biden is legally entitled to end the Trump candidacy by any and all means necessary, so long as he says it was an “official act.”
Wouldn’t that be a riot. Literally speaking.
Is ordering the killing of an American citizen an official duty of the President?
Peter,
The Roberts Court seems to think that any killing ordered by a president is an official act. That, of course, is absolute nonsense.
When it comes to American citizens, an American president should only be allowed to order a killing if that person was a proven threat to national security or American forces. Naturally, your political opponents would never be included in that category until they committed treason against the United States. And even there, there would have to be a gradation scale.
According to SCOTUS, the answer is now a resounding “yes,” if he feels it necessary to execute the duties of his position.
This is a bad fucking day in American history no matter who you support. The decision was as bad as Dred Scott. The true depth of it’s depravity won’t be felt until long after it’s too late for anyone to do anything about it.
I don’t think ordering the murder of an American citizen is defined anywhere as an official duty of the President.
Didn’t the SCOTUS ruling also say that it was up to a judge to decide what constitutes an official duty?
Will Democrats outraged at the SCOTUS ruling now charge Barack Obama with murder for the drone strikes that killed American citizens?
Peter,
It was made crystal clear that the Presidential duties are in line with Richard Nixon’s famous quote: “If the President does it, it’s not illegal.” There’s no more checks and balances. To say otherwise is, at besr, wishful thinking, and at worst deflection from reality. Whataboutism is now irrelevant. The President of the United States is now a King. That’s a dreadful reality no matter who is in the office, but given the two choices are a senile octogenarian and a pathological narcissist, that should terrify people to unite beyond bullshit tribalism.
Jason
a) Suggest you read the ruling.
b) Quoting Richard Nixon! Remember what happened to him?
c) Funny how Democrats who are complaining about the immunity ruling, are not suggesting Obama be charged with murder for killing American citizens. Shouldn’t Obama be charged?
The will of the people has been replaced by the will of special-interest groups, who own most members of Congress.
Democracy: no
Farce: yes
Warren,
If anyone thinks that Biden’s future decision is to stay the course and that such a decision will put an end to it, they’re dreaming. Biden has two choices: he can preferably go now, or be forced to go later. The polls will prove in due course that it will be a runaway election for Trump if Biden remains the nominee.
Warren,
Those idiot governors have backed Biden. Now, it’s going to be utter destruction by polls, one at a time. Trump is at minimum headed for a ten-point lead and it’s coming fast. God help us.
Ronald,
What senior Democrats fear is a fractured party on the convention floor.
Which is why Joe might be stickin’ around.
Douglas,
I’d rather have a fractured party and even a bloodied floor fight for the nomination. Even under those two scenarios, both options have a better chance of returning a Democrat president than going with Biden. Biden is already toast. If he stays, he’ll be known for helping Trump win the presidency once again.