Hillsboroughstpunk said:
ACLU-
"The opinion also sits like a loaded weapon for Trump to abuse in the pursuit of criminal ends if he is reelected."
Trump? Maybe Pub's should start worrying that Seal team 6 shows up at Mar A Lago in their official sanctioned act by the POTUS, to send a convicted felon who is viewed as a threat to America, to Guantanamo Bay. Or just the standard two in the chest, one in the dome move. Outlandish? Certainly, but with todays SC ruling, it is within the realm of plausibility.
Or that Biden orders arrests of Supreme Court members, for acts harmful to the United States, or whatever they come up with. Maybe like Clarence Thomas had accepted bribes. Up to you CT to prove your innocence of the charges. Whoops! Be carful going down those stairs during your visit to Guantanamo!
Plus many more scenarios that till today were considered implausible and even insane. Yet... the ground work has been laid towards a United States where this is now possible.
Let's just say that incarceration's are made and no wet work done. Would those actions now have to be challenged in court as to if they were Official acts? I guess it might fall to who is sitting in the judges chair, when any appointed Judge not towing the party line has been rounded up and sent to a re-education camp. In any case, how long would those incarcerated sit in a black site till the court decides official or not. Most bad/old laws cannot be reversed until they are challenged. You have to have an example where it is shown as flawed in order to overturn it.
Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it.
I highly doubt this will happen. Given that the Democratic party is neutered, but you never know what happens when the horses are out of the barn, and people are panicking, say like the election date is fast approaching and your terrible performances in debates has you way back in the polls, yet you are President with vast immunities, and a way to rid yourself of any competition. You seen how that works in other countries like Russia, China, and others. Political rivals, just fall out of windows or eat some bad food. The percental chance of it happening here too in the U.S. just raised dramatically.
The Supreme Court has done America no favors with this. Passing the buck some on it too and making the whole matter very convoluted while those who have the ability, and the will to abuse it, will. And then we all try to figure out what's the fair deal, like if that happens will there be a fair court system in place and have the power to enforce it?
I want to say all the above is hyperbole, but I cannot as it now is more within the realm of possibility. You can argue that it always has been, but today... it just gained more legitimacy. It should bother you no matter what your political leanings are. The power of America should reside in it's people and in state rights. Not a Supreme leader.
Huh? I don't think you actually understand what this ruling does. The government can't violate someone's rights (illegal acts). Any act will still result in the same lawsuit it would have resulted in before. Just that the president (if it is an official act which would require it to be based in the official powers of the constitution) can not be held criminally liable for it. If it is an unofficial act he can be held criminally liable. Its the same standard that congress is held to. They are immune from criminal liability for official acts conducted during the course of their business. A great example would be speaking on the floor of congress. They can say whatever they want to include divulging classified information with no possibility of criminal charges.
