Yes, but as Rob pointed out, it’s tough to imagine Biden doing anything of the sort, especially in the little time left before the election. He’s too busy trying to demonstrate that he still has some sap in his veins.
15 Likes
Not on American soil AFAIK.
Trump does have his golf course in Ayrshire though. It would mean bombing the place where my mum grew up (as collateral damage), but we all need to make sacrifices for the good of the planet.
/s
16 Likes
The point is that the Supreme Court has given the President immunity from prosecution. They did it for Trump but Biden can take advantage of it too.
11 Likes
The point is that trump’s criminality is why I’ll vote for Biden. Wanting Biden to act like trump isn’t winning, it’s accepting defeat on american democracy
25 Likes
So, when’s the General Strike? I’m getting my pantry ready for the disruptions.
11 Likes
What I don’t see is how trying to arrange to subvert the result of a presidential election where the incumbent pretty clearly lost can be construed as being even remotely part of that president’s “official duties”. Surely if you lose an election, your main remaining official duty is to ensure the smooth transfer of power to your duly-elected successor, not to figure out how you can possibly remain in office even though you’ve just been voted out?
34 Likes
this is the part where i say holy *#$@. because, if they can’t examine it - then there’s no way to determine what’s official. all a president ■■■■■ needs to do is say it was official, and that’s that.
this is horrifying
31 Likes
Seth Abramson goes on to argue that it would be a dereliction of duty for Biden not to consider how he can use his newly expanded presidential powers to stop Trump engaging in insurrection.
16 Likes
Yes, obviously, but I think that Biden will do nothing of the sort. I see no evidence for that. What makes you think he will, or even might?
15 Likes
So time for President Biden to order Seal Team 6 to protect democracy and send then to kill a certain convicted felon.
3 Likes
23 Likes
Nothing makes me think he will. But he can, and that needs to be borne in mind.
Indeed, the framing of any legal analysis of this decision should not focus on whoever is running the next presidential administration but on the current presidential administration.
We have a president right now, and the Supreme Court just dramatically increased his powers.
It is a gift to Trump for media or for the Biden administration to act as though this decision about the powers of the presidency does not apply to the current president. By the same token, it would be a gift to insurrectionists to say we are not currently facing an insurrection.
16 Likes
The president has no official part in the election process, but I’m sure the Republican majority of the court will be happy to turn the law to snot and say otherwise.
18 Likes
That last bit is the only part of this that actually changes our understanding of presidential immunity, though. None of T****’s actions related to Jan 6 or the documents case constitute official actions, other than pressuring Pence to go off script.
His actions on Jan 6 were as a candidate, not the president. His actions in the classified documents case were as a private citizen, not the president. His call to Raffensburger in Georgia was as a candidate, not the president.
The biggest problem with this ruling is the ambiguity, not the ruling itself.
30 Likes
Ah, right, great points!
20 Likes
Determining whether an action is “official” would mean years of legal wrangling, which would effectvely mean impunity.
14 Likes
Is that an official action, though?
Oh no… it sucks. It’s a fucking disaster of a ruling. We’re fucked here.
The question is if they WILL be interpreted AS official actions or not. I agree that they are not, but does this give a court cover to say that they are and just… dismiss a case, like the documents case, for example.
21 Likes
both Sotomayor and Jackson omitted the “respectfully”, which is traditionally used to qualify dissents.
From Loper bright (Kagan)
And it is impossible to pretend that today’s decision is a
one-off, in either its treatment of agencies or its treatment
of precedent. As to the first, this very Term presents yet
another example of the Court’s resolve to roll back agency
authority, despite congressional direction to the contrary.
See SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U. S. ___ (2024); see also supra, at 3. As to the second, just my own defenses of stare decisis—my own dissents to this Court’s reversals of settled law—by
now fill a small volume. See Dobbs, 597 U. S., at 363–364
(joint opinion of Breyer, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ.); Ed-
wards v. Vannoy, 593 U. S. 255, 296–297 (2021); Knick v.
Township of Scott, 588 U. S. 180, 207–208 (2019); Janus,
585 U. S., at 931–932. Once again, with respect, I dissent.
or Grant’s Post (Sotomayor)
This Court, too, has a role to play in faithfully enforcing
the Constitution to prohibit punishing the very existence of
those without shelter. I remain hopeful that someday in
the near future, this Court will play its role in safeguarding
constitutional liberties for the most vulnerable among us.
Because the Court today abdicates that role, I respectfully
dissent.
But in this case
(Sotomayor)
Never in the history of our Republic has a President had
reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal
prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate
the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former
Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occu-
pant of that office misuses official power for personal gain,
the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not pro-
vide a backstop.
With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
(Jackson)
The majority of my colleagues seems to have put their
trust in our Court’s ability to prevent Presidents from be-
coming Kings through case-by-case application of the inde-
terminate standards of their new Presidential accountabil-
ity paradigm. I fear that they are wrong. But, for all our sakes, I hope that they are right.
In the meantime, because the risks (and power) the Court
has now assumed are intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly
antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms, I dissent
22 Likes
Who cares what they think? They just excluded themselves from the process.
7 Likes
She’s not alone in that…
16 Likes
