• ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    232
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Wouldn’t this mean a president has an obligation to kill his political opponents if they’re seen as a threat to the United States, and as an official act, it would be completely legal? Effectively making one man above the law.

    Even if it’s not seen as an official act, you can’t charge the president while they’re in the office, and with that power and a loyal justice department, you could eliminate anyone who might try to argue the legality of your actions.

    Good luck convincing anyone to bring a case against the guy who keeps making people disappear when they investigate him.

    This + project 2025 & a trump presidency is the end of US democracy. I don’t even wanna start thinking about the impacts globally…

    • Dragomus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      74
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Trump could now argue he, as sitting president, was threatened in his functioning by the new president elect, and it was an official act to block the transfer of power as long as the sitting president has concerns about the validity of the votes. (Ofcourse he always has those concerns)

      And now with the coming elections he will claim the same and as a bonus he officially and in the open has the republicans refuse to certify a losing vote because that also threatens his position and impedes his functioning.

      If the lower courts now claim his acts were not official he will just appeal that back to the Supreme Court, thereby still delaying any closure of the case well after the elections.

    • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      Biden should just pass an official law that SCOTUS must be evenly split between major parties.

      This couldn’t be illegal to do anymore, as Biden will be immune, as it’ll be an official act.

        • farcaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          54
          ·
          2 days ago

          Are you saying it might be a crime for a President to unilaterally invent a new law and make the federal government enforce it? Well, you see…

          • Asafum@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            No just unconstitutional which is what the scotus exists to make judgments about. They just take it upon themselves to judge everything else too…

        • xenomor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          46
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          You are confusing the United States that existed until this decision with the United States that exists after this decision. As long as it’s an official act, the president can now do whatever it wants. If the supremes court objects, the president and threaten or assassinate the justices as long as it’s an official act. The President is now effectively a king. Read Sotomayor’s dissent in this decision. She explicitly states this.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            18
            ·
            2 days ago

            That’s the thing, for the executive branch, passing laws is not an official act. It’s outside that branch of government. That’s what the Legislative branch does.

            It would be like Biden overturning a court ruling. That’s the Judicial branch, not your dance.

            • xenomor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              22
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              I get it. This is how government functions according to the constitution. Please understand however, under this new interpretation there is no effective legal check on the executive doing anything at all. Yes, it’s not official for the president to do that, but there is no enforcement mechanism, and the president now has authority to coerce anyone or any institution. I know it is difficult to grasp the implications of that, but that is in fact what the Supreme Court did today.

              • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                2 days ago

                That’s the plan right, that’s part of Project 2025, to instantiate Unitary Executive Theory to make everything they do legal regardless of courts and impeachment trials.

            • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              So in your opinion, did they just reaffirm something like the presumption of innocence but it’s tailored for someone who’s job it is to sometimes order the deaths of people? So he has “The presumption of immunity” when making otherwise illegal orders, until it’s otherwise determined by a court case, or impeachment hearing? Is that what’s going on?

              • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 days ago

                It protects any official action.

                So, for example, the notorious drone strikes that Obama ordered which killed a bunch of innocent people.

                As commander in chief, that’s an official act, he would have immunity.

                Bush and Abu Ghraib torture? Same.

                • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Bear in mind that the drone strikes are less attributed to Trump because he revoked or ignored accountability rules and authorized the CIA and defense department to conduct drone strikes without seeking authorization from the White House.

                  It’s easy to assume that Trump was ‘better’, but nope. He was much, much worse. He just hid the evidence and delegated the crime to others.

                  Under Donald Trump, drone strikes far exceed Obama’s numbers – Chicago Sun-Times

                  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    Oh, I never meant to bring Trump into it, just that Obama continued Bush’s drone program and in a perfect world it would have all been illegal… but not if the President does it. ;)

          • FatCrab@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            I would rather he just pack the bench to 50 seats, one for each state, fast track nominations, and force congress to stay in session until a full court is appointed by putting hoteling them in the vicinity and only allowing them movement between hotels and congressional chambers. This would be in his power and immune as official acts after all.

      • forrgott@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s…not how it works. Like where your heart is, but this makes no sense.