r/NorthCarolina • u/Longjumping-Path3811 • 3d ago
SCOTUS new ruling and my questions for Jeff Jackson discussion
So like /u/JeffJackson now that the SCOTUS had ruled presidents are kings and dictators to save Trump our current president is going to get rid of the clearly corrupt 6 justices and put his own in? How about we give Boeing back to the people and fix that mess? A little seizing of the musk, Zuckerberg, and bezos assets sounds pretty good too. A little UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE and seizing all insurance companies for the people.
All official acts of course.
Like I'm sure you're all in a meeting right now in discussion on how our POTUS finally has the chains off and can finally do good for the people before he puts it back together again for the next election (removing these justices and replacing them and going back to rule of law after we take care of a few loose ends)
I mean what an opportunity!
All official acts of course.
Calling you out because I suspect you actually care. Nothing personal.
Also no one bother with the "wah hyperbole" here's a quote from one of the supreme Court Justices so anyone not a constitutional lawyer can take a seat and zip it.
"When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution," Sotomayor wrote. "Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
"Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done," she continued. "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."
105
u/HashRunner 3d ago
Republicans took less than 4 years of SC control to drop the mask and go full fascist/dictator support while running interference for their leaders multiple criminal trials.
That should tell you all you need to know about Republicans and the GOP.
This isn't a two party issue, this is Republicans taking steps to eliminate every other party and opposition.
9
u/redditckulous 3d ago
Doesn’t change any outcomes, but it’s worth clarifying that republicans have had the majority on the court since Nixon was president. No one under the age of 55 has lived in the United States under anything other than a republican controlled court.
3
u/OmegaSpeed_odg 3d ago
Yeah. But you don’t go for a fascist play until you’re shored up… this was a 50+ year plot in the making.
They jumped the gun a little on Jan 6, but unfortunately enough brainwashing had already occurred amongst the public (and enough of a takeover of the court) that it didn’t really matter much. Unless “centrists” take serious offense this election, we’re gonna be cooked.
72
u/rexeditrex 3d ago
It's too bad Joe doesn't have the stones to use this ruling to his advantage. I'd have Trump and the 6 conservative justices taken out by now.
20
u/G00dSh0tJans0n 3d ago
I mean, if you think about it, it really it just another version of the Trolley problem.
21
3d ago
[deleted]
12
u/G00dSh0tJans0n 3d ago
TBH I haven't heard a legit reason why he shouldn't expand the court to 15 members. There's zero argument against it.
6
u/ScumLikeWuertz 3d ago
There is no reason other than Democrats believe if they subvert the norm, their opponent will go even more scorched earth when they regain power. And that's arguably a real threat to think about.
They got rid of the filibuster for judicial confirmations and that ended up going poorly for them, so there is some logic behind their constant hesitancy and deference.
5
u/G00dSh0tJans0n 3d ago
But in any case Republicans would go scorched earth. Ever since they refused to allow a vote on Obama’s SCOTUS nomination they should have realized that.
2
u/OmegaSpeed_odg 3d ago
Yeah, what they fail to acknowledge is that Republicans aren’t afraid to go scorched earth when it suits them… but they just have not needed to go scorched earth because they’ve been able to get their priorities done other ways.
But once it suits them, they’d break any norms (just like they did with the whole “no lame duck scotus pick” in 2016, but then they did it in 2020).
5
u/DeliriumConsumer 3d ago
It would upset the other side
8
u/SmashTheGoat 3d ago
Fuck em.
5
u/Bald_Nightmare 3d ago
Exactly. Fuck em. You better believe if the roles were reversed they would have expanded it on day 1. There is zero reason to try to compromise with these traitors any longer.
3
u/AlbertoVO_jive 3d ago
Can guarantee team Trump is drafting some big plans where they test just how far they can go empowered by this ruling.
I fully expect a federal election task force to be monitoring ballot counting in blue states to make sure only the right candidate gets votes come the 2028 election if Trump is in office.
2
u/DeeElleEye 2d ago
Already done: Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership.
A few highlights of the 900-page plan to create a Christian nationalist state: * Replace career, nonpartisan civil servants with Trump loyalists who will not oppose him on anything * Dismantle federal agencies such as the Department of Education, and place other independent federal agencies (such as the Department of Justice) under direct presidential control * Outsource important government functions to the private sector, such as the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) lifesaving weather forecasting capabilities * Slash investment and research for renewable energy * Significantly reduce corporate income taxes * Build a wall (no surprise) and make legal immigration based on how much money people can pay while consolidating immigration agencies and expanding their powers * Restrict LGBTQ rights * Ban abortion medication, birth control, and other medications they deem as "abortifacients" according to an extreme, non scientific religious belief * Ban all pornography * Dismantle public education in favor of public funds going to private schools (vouchers) * Remove the following terms from all federal laws: “sexual orientation", “diversity, equity, and inclusion”, “gender equality”, "abortion" and “reproductive rights” * Weaponize federal grantmaking (currently responsible for a lot of scientific research that benefits the public) to advance conservative policy objectives, such as only funding abstinence-only education programs to prevent teen pregnancy * Expand the use of the Insurrection Act to show the president to use military for domestic law enforcement, like at protests
1
u/triangl-pixl-pushr 3d ago
Those plans are in a little document called Project 2025. It's a 1,000-page wishlist dreamed up by the far right. John Oliver recently covered it on Last Week Tonight.
-2
u/Catman69meow 3d ago
If someone said this except from Trump’s perspective they would be tried in court
1
1
u/rexeditrex 3d ago
It’s only in the context of this ridiculous ruling. Trump’s lawyers argued this.
49
u/wtfbenlol Wilson 3d ago
I hope yall like dictatorships cause we got one brewing.
Good job
17
u/Alfphe99 3d ago
You know I actually convinced myself we have survived worse when Trump won in 2016, we can survive him. Apparently I was very very wrong.
9
16
u/reddit_1999 3d ago
The conservative Supreme Court is in the tank for Trump, and instead of calling out the possibility of the end of democracy, the media wants a horse race for ratings and advertising money. We, the people, are just going to have to vote the MAGA Republican Party to extinction at the polls this November.
5
7
u/redditckulous 3d ago
Key point in the ruling being “official acts,” which scotus declined to define. Most of the things you mentioned are clearly outside of official acts, but anything even on the periphery SCOTUS isn’t going to decide in favor of Biden. The Judicial branch has given itself immeasurable control over the executive branch in the past week. With republican control of the legislature, there is minimal that can be done to rein them in at the moment.
3
u/AccountNumeroThree 3d ago
The ruling doesn’t even really change the current established law, either. It forces the case back to a lower court to decide if Trump’s statements and actions on January 6 count as official acts or not.
1
u/redditckulous 2d ago
On the “official acts” portion, I agree. They did change established law on the evidentiary portion though.
0
u/beamin1 3d ago
It is the duty of The Executive to defend the country against all threats to democracy, both foreign and domestic.
They've clearly left it for The Executive to decide what constitutes a threat.
Get your ass to work Joe.
3
u/redditckulous 3d ago
No, they’ve clearly left it to themselves to decide what constitutes a threat vis a vis an official act.
33
u/Bob_Sconce 3d ago
There is a LOT of misinformation out there about this ruling. I encourage everybody to actually read the opinion AND the dissent: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf (I've only skimmed them, so that includes me.)
One thing to consider: Yes, immediately, this affects Trump. But, it also benefits Joe Biden by, among other things, dramatically limiting the ability of MAGA-types to go after Biden for things he's done during his presidency. For example, a lot of the MAGA nuts are saying that Biden is legally to blame for crimes committed by illegal aliens that he's allowing into the country. You could easily see Ken Paxton going after Biden on that basis.
Also, note that this opinion doesn't reach things like Trump's handling of classified documents which happened after he left office.
48
u/less_butter 3d ago
My big concern isn't about how this affects the current cases against Trump, it's about what he does if he gets re-elected and is convinced that he has absolute immunity to do whatever he wants, and the Democrats won't have the power or the balls to stop him.
26
u/Alfphe99 3d ago
I have read it and listened to a few lawyers takes (as I am not a legal scholar) and it seems it is written in a way to have so much up in the air so they can decide how they want to rule based off of who is the one doing it. So if a GOP person does something that gets to the courts, they can bend the rule to help them out, but if a Dem does the same thing, they can bend the ruling to go against.
7
u/Shinkaru 3d ago edited 3d ago
It's left up in the air because there is no good one size fits all answer to the question as to whether a president is immune from prosecution for acts done while they were president. There was never going to be a good answer that people wanted to hear and every answer is bad.
If they permit prosecution then it opens the door for malicious prosecution of former presidents by their successors. This could also have implications on things like military actions ordered by presidents, think Obama being prosecuted for drone strikes during his presidency. This is really dangerous.
OTOH if they allow blanket immunity then presidents can do whatever they want including assassinate rivals, etc. This is similarly, very dangerous.
There was no good answer to this question and the fact we're here is a problem in and among itself, but I think people are too doom and gloom about it because they want to see it as a political question without asking what would happen if a solidified answer was given either way. Their answer at least leaves Trump open to prosecution if it can be proven he acted outside an official capacity and leaves some flexibility for later cases.
2
u/Unfortunate-Incident 2d ago
This. Every. Single. Thing. a president does now is going to be litigated with the question of "was this an official act". The supreme court will be ruling on what is official acts and what isn't for the next 10 years. Most presidents won't try it, but some like Trump, will use his "official" powers with the mindset that if it goes to court he'll win. Democrats would be too scared of losing in court to actually use this immunity.
4
u/Savingskitty 3d ago
Eh, then we fight. But, there are a lot of steps between now and then. Gotta stay vigilant.
5
2
u/a_fine_day_to_ligma 3d ago
One thing to consider: Yes, immediately, this affects Trump. But, it also benefits Joe Biden by, among other things, dramatically limiting the ability of MAGA-types to go after Biden for things he's done during his presidency. For example, a lot of the MAGA nuts are saying that Biden is legally to blame for crimes committed by illegal aliens that he's allowing into the country. You could easily see Ken Paxton going after Biden on that basis.
pretty sure they're all content to just let the administration play itself out for the next few months
1
u/Bob_Sconce 3d ago
I'm not nearly so convinced. Some of those people are vindictive bastards. I mean look at all the prosecutions of Trump and his inner-circle. Does anybody really think the Maga types won't respond in kind?
I'm guessing that the next big question will be "ok former secretary so-n-so, why shouldn't we prosecute you for things you did on Biden's order. He may be immune, but you're not."
-1
u/that_centrist 3d ago
glad one other person on this site has a large brain like me and can realize both parties are the same... one prosecuting a career criminal for his multiple felonies, the other vengefully seeking the reigns of power via insurrection... two sides of the same coin indeed
1
u/theshoeshiner84 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yea I'm just as worried about Trump as the next guy, but being immune from prosecution for carrying out constitutional duties like signing bills into law seems pretty reasonable. Presumptive immunity for official acts also seems reasonable. It's not preventing legislators from legislating, and all the hypotheticals about using the military to assassinate a political rivals also seem outside the scope of immunity. Prosecution could easily prove those to be illegal without danger of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch.
Yes, this creates a delay, but SCOTUS' job is not to fast track cases because we "really really want them to happen" before the election.
1
22
u/Mr_1990s 3d ago
My preference here is for the North Carolina delegation to push for the impeachment of the six Supreme Court justices in the majority of this ruling.
5
-2
-1
u/Plastic_Square_9820 3d ago
And how do you suppose that would happen because I don't think you even realize what you're asking for.
2
u/Mr_1990s 3d ago
It was my immediate thought. Upon further reflection, I realized what we really need are Senate convictions and for enough of the right wing fever to break in this country for there to be 2/3 of the Senate with the guts to convict at least 5 of the 6 justices in the majority of this ruling.
-2
12
u/Longjumping-Path3811 3d ago
I mean when republicans feed you a shit sandwich, feed it back to them!
0
-4
2
u/beamin1 3d ago
Soooo the account you tagged is deleted OP....But I agree with everything you said, the gloves need to come off.
ETA /u/JeffJacksonNC
2
u/janglejack 3d ago
Would those following a criminal or illegal order become immune as well? As far as I know some of these examples are still illegal for those who carry them out. I'd like someone to tell me how that works. I have always heard that you should refuse to carry out an illegal order. I am scared of this immunity, so I am looking at the angles.
2
u/procrasturb8n 3d ago
Does the Supreme Court have a non-impediment clause, like where you cannot prevent a Congressman from getting to the Capitol and voting? If not, Biden should just use his new ultimate, Presidential immunity to "officially" direct his DOJ to declare a few Supreme Court Justices* a threat to democracy and have them locked up for as long as he sees fit.
2
8
u/-PM_YOUR_BACON 3d ago
Boy, mods really slacking today as this ruling has nothing to do with NC. And Jeff Jackson can't do anything about it.
3
u/BagOnuts 2d ago
Yeah, but it’s “Trump/conservatives/Republicans bad”, so that’s allowed here.
I’m saying this as someone who will be voting for Biden in November and has voted nearly straight-Dem in the last few elections: liberals have gone off the deep end. OP’s summary of this court ruling is so misinformed and misguided yet it’s at the top of the subreddit. People legitimately believe that this ruling makes the president a king/dictator. Absolutely bonkers.
-1
1
u/goldbman Tar 3d ago
Presidents have immunity from moderation. Also since the departure of the mushroom mod, moderation on this sub has been pretty laid back
2
u/-PM_YOUR_BACON 2d ago
Yeah, I don't think they have made a comment basically since the mod takeover from reddit. Seems like unless its straight up spam, the rules don't matter any longer.
-1
u/JFT8675309 3d ago
Jeff is a freshman lame duck rep who was drawn out of running for a second term. I don’t doubt he cares, but what do you suppose he can do?
-1
u/J-photo 3d ago
Make a slick TikTok about how the other side doesn’t actually mean to use their power for evil. It’s just all a show. Don’t worry everybody. /s
1
u/goldbman Tar 3d ago
MTG is actually a reasonable and pleasant person off camera. Biden is sharp and witty behind the scenes.
-3
-5
u/VeryNormalGuy1861 3d ago
The ruling does not make the President a genie that can now do anything they want. The president's authority is neither increased nor decreased by this ruling in any way. All elected officials, including Congressmen and governors, have always had 100% immunity for official acts since the founding.
5
u/Royal_Flame 3d ago
No the presidential immunity is a thing completely made up by the courts based on common law precedent, while legislative immunity is defined in the constitution
1
u/ClenchedThunderbutt 3d ago
There is a significant difference between implicit and explicit immunity.
-4
u/Savingskitty 3d ago edited 3d ago
Hon, you quoted a dissent.
Sotomayor is not wrong that the hair splitting is dangerous, though really a blatant attempt to delay prosecution in this instance, but the scenarios she lays out are not definitively considered official acts.
Apparently nothing is, at this point.
Roberts is basically being a non-committal coward again. Though on the other hand may be saving Biden from potential witch hunts.
Your suggestions are ludicrous. Are you a constitutional lawyer?
4
u/Actual_Sprinkles_291 3d ago
All you need is SCOTUS lite at a lower or state court and Trump will be ruled favorably thanks to this bs
0
-4
u/NcgreenIantern 3d ago
It's good new for Obama it just means he's never going to be held responsible for ordering drone strikes on birthday parties and killing Americans.
0
u/Flimsy_Breakfast_353 3d ago
It’s obvious that Freedom, Democracy and the representation of it’s citizens no longer matters to our SCOTUS. Sad times for America and all who have died and sacrificed for our Rights and Freedoms. Country will be now owned by foreign governments and corporations who can buy media and influence policy in all forms. Voting rights have been stripped.
0
-30
u/You-are-all_idiots 3d ago
When something doesn't go your way it doesn't mean the sky is falling..
14
u/JDReedy 704 3d ago
Holy shit talk about not understanding what's going
5
u/Alfphe99 3d ago
That's the rub...they have no idea what any of these last couple of rulings mean because their "Team" is the one making them so they are happy with it. They are like cattle being lead to slaughter like the rest of us, but they are rooting for the butcher.
3
u/Kradget 3d ago
No, but in this case it does mean the president is above the law.
You're literally dependent on Joe Biden's conscience right now to avoid an emergency declaration that you have to... I dunno, pick a thing he or Obama was supposedly planning according to right wing conspiracy theories. If it's an "official act," he's immune to prosecution.
Ponder this for a moment, yeah?
11
0
u/Savingskitty 3d ago
Eh, this is getting there. Disappointing but not at all unexpected based on the arguments.
-8
u/qaf0v4vc0lj6 3d ago
Nonsense! This is the worse thing to happen to most of these people in this sub since that time their mom forgot to pack the honey mustard with their tendies for school lunch a few months ago!
-1
u/rlinkmanl 3d ago
Yeah just because we came one step closer to a dictatorship today doesn't mean anything
-1
-6
u/Heavy_Metal_Thunder_ 3d ago edited 3d ago
Biden deemed too mentally incapacitated to be charged with anything how bout that lol!
-34
u/idowatercolours 3d ago
Lmao at this post. Liberal tears are so sweet 😋
8
u/ClenchedThunderbutt 3d ago
What about this do you genuinely find good? It is as blanket of protection for the people you hate as it is those you support, meaning there is now nothing explicitly stopping Biden from doing exactly what Trump tried to do last go-around should Trump win the EC in November. Even if you believe the election then was rigged, there is nothing stopping Biden from lying about it this time around.
-2
u/idowatercolours 3d ago edited 3d ago
I find this a win against recently emerging lawfare and persecution against political opponents. We’ve been going down the wrong path in past couple of years and it’s been alarming. I applaud this decision as it’s great for our democracy
4
u/rlinkmanl 3d ago
This decision literally brings us one step closer to a dictatorship as it gives the president immunity and therefore more power. In what way is this great for our democracy?
0
u/idowatercolours 3d ago
It does not. We have Supreme Court and the Congress as measures to check presidential powers. Thats called checks and balances
We’ve never used personal litigation to check presidential powers lmao up until now
4
u/rlinkmanl 3d ago
We absolutely have used litigation against presidents before. And the Supreme Court is clearly very corrupt, just look at all of the bribes Clarence Thomas has gotten.
1
u/idowatercolours 3d ago
I disagree = corrupt lol
2
u/rlinkmanl 3d ago
No, taking tons of bribes from wealthy businessmen = corrupt
1
u/idowatercolours 3d ago
Oooh are we talking about Hunter Biden taking bribes from China, Russia and Ukraine for “the big guy”
5
u/rlinkmanl 3d ago
No I'm talking about Clarence Thomas obviously since we're talking about someone on the Supreme Court and not civilians.
→ More replies (0)-6
16
u/Mono_Aural 3d ago
Presidents behaving criminally does tend to make liberals sad.
Why doesn't it bother conservatives?
10
u/Abidarthegreat 3d ago
It's diffe(R)ent.
I've always said that the biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Dems put Justice over Loyalty and Reps put Loyalty over Justice. For Republicans, crime is okay as long as you swear fealty to the party. They are the party of "help your friends hide the body" types.
You see it over and over again, Dems getting kicked out immediately for even small social faux pas but Reps will try to cover up or ignore any crime they commit as long as it doesn't directly hurt the party's agenda.
That's why Fascists are so drawn to the Republican party.
-5
3d ago
It's (D)ifferent. Fixed it for you.
3
u/Abidarthegreat 3d ago edited 3d ago
No, child. I had it right the first time. But thanks for your worthless input that I didn't ask for.
Lol, butt hurts baby girl gets big mad and reply blocks me! Hilarious!
-2
3d ago
-posts on public forum -can't handle deviation from the narrative
Aww...sorry your feewings were hurt, princess. Come on back when your off your period.
-20
u/idowatercolours 3d ago
“Criminally” lol if committing a misdemeanor makes you a criminal every one of us who has a speeding or a parking ticket is a criminal
15
u/goldbman Tar 3d ago
Those aren't misdemeanors.
-13
u/idowatercolours 3d ago
Yes business record “falsification” is a misdemeanor and a victimless crime
3
12
u/skyshark82 3d ago
Willful retention of Top Secret and Sensitive Compartmentalized Information is not a misdemeanor. And his habit of falsifying business records was ruled felonious 34 times. Go ahead and tell us the sky isn't blue again.
0
u/idowatercolours 3d ago
Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor in NY LOL nice try.
The other thing you mentioned Trump was never convicted for. Keep going
9
u/skyshark82 3d ago
It is a felony. Source
0
u/idowatercolours 3d ago
It’s actually not. It’s a product of a vague and likely unconstitutional law and an overly enthusiastic DA. The business falsification charge is a misdemeanor, DA Bragg chose to interpret it as a felony
I bet you you can’t even explain your source, because you don’t read past the headline
5
u/skyshark82 3d ago edited 2d ago
Yes huh. These were felonies. Court said so.
Can you explain, "explain your source"? Do you want to know about the Associated Press? It's a cooperative non-profit that collects news from a large distribution network, then publishes news with a concerted effort to avoid bias by strictly reporting the events. AP stories tend to state that X event occurred on this day, not so much on opinion and commentary. For example: Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felonies related to business falsification. Where it benefitted him, he undervalued properties. And when it benefitted him, he overvalued them by many times the previous valuation. He also falsely claimed that zoning laws allowed for the building of nine mansions when this was explicitly disallowed.
I also noticed that you repeated the statement that the crime was victimless because he was stopped. If someone gets caught leaving the bank vault with the money bags, and the money is recovered, do we just send them home because it was a victimless crime? Does the market function if fraud is allowed to proliferate without consequence, just so long as the perpetrator does not succeed? Is the sky green or blue?
0
u/idowatercolours 3d ago
Business record falsification is a misdemeanor at best. AP is just reporting on what happened lol doesn’t mean he was rightfully convicted
Courts also exonerated OJ does it mean he is innocent? lol
3
u/skyshark82 3d ago
Business record falsification is a misdemeanor at best.
Says who? You? Joe Nobody? You say that valuing Mar a Lago at $18 million when you owe taxes, then later valuing it at $1 billion when you want to claim it as an asset is a misdemeanor? That changes everything.
→ More replies (0)10
u/Actual_Sprinkles_291 3d ago
I can’t wait for Biden to call the election rigged, turn state electors blue and have liberals storm the capitol building.
-7
u/idowatercolours 3d ago
He can call it rigged but there is no power by which a president can actually “turn the state electors blue” lol nice try
7
u/Kradget 3d ago
Of course he can. That's an official act.
0
u/idowatercolours 3d ago
It’s not. It would be immediately overturned by the Supreme Court and the Congress
5
u/Kradget 3d ago
Who's gonna enforce it?
1
u/idowatercolours 3d ago
The military. The president only controls the military to the extent that he makes policy and decisions which will be made to happen by the military. However if his decisions violate the UCMJ, Constitution or the Geneva Convention - I.e unconstitutional executive action, presidential order will under no uncertain terms be refused.
Congress can then proceed to impeach and remove the president.
There is no mechanism under which a lower court’s litigation trumps or serves as a bigger deterrent for a president than actions by the Congress of the Supreme Court.
5
4
u/Kradget 3d ago
The Biden administration has blanket immunity to move you into a FEMA camp under the Walmarts right now and use the military to enforce it. They're no longer susceptible to prosecution for that.
1
u/idowatercolours 3d ago
Negative. If they he were to rule that with an executive order, it would be immediately struck down by the SCOTUS and such actions would warrant impeachment investigations lol
Let’s not act like personal litigation served as a protective blanket against presidential executive powers lol ridiculous notion
3
u/Kradget 3d ago
To paraphrase Andrew Jackson, "Mr Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it."
-3
u/idowatercolours 3d ago
To paraphrase your response - “I’m stumped and have nothing of substance to say “
3
u/Kradget 3d ago
That means literally nothing, so thanks for what you've contributed
-1
u/idowatercolours 3d ago
Your Andrew Jackson quote was also no sequitur
5
u/Kradget 3d ago
It's a specific reference to a president deciding to do something illegal as a clear abuse of executive power that nobody's realistically able to stop.
For a movement that claims to be so concerned with history, y'all don't know dick about it.
-1
u/idowatercolours 3d ago
That pre civil war era quote is completely irrelevant in modern context and is disingenuous.
We’ve seen some modest and common sense executive orders being halted and not unforced when challenged by regional courts (i.e remain in Mexico, middle eastern travel ban etc ).
If you think fear of personal litigation is what stopped these laws from being enforced at the time they were being challenged in courts, you might just be ignorant of how our republic functions
3
u/Kradget 3d ago
That's not what disingenuous means.
It's also not irrelevant - it's a reference to an abuse of executive power in defiance of the law. Y'know, the thing you're saying isn't a thing.
Personal litigation? I'm discussing criminal offenses, which Biden now has presumed immunity to. What's that thing y'all used to like to yell about "words mean things?"
→ More replies (0)6
u/Substance___P 3d ago
Almost as sweet as Trump diarrhea.
-4
u/idowatercolours 3d ago edited 3d ago
You eat diarrhea? 😂😂 makes sense
5
-7
-5
-16
u/Forkboy2 3d ago
Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon?
Those don't sound like official acts, so seems a bit alarmist.
Also, Congress still has the power of impeachment.
4
-16
137
u/featherfeets 3d ago
I guess it's time to hope like hell the guy in office runs with this and makes it stick. I hope he starts with executive orders expanding the court.
Actually, I hope he starts with orders that fire six members of the court.