He turned out to be a decent president, except for the massive, glaring failure to build any sort of meaningful bulwark against fascism. He had, like, the absolute best justification and mandate to aggressively crack down on the neofascists with Jan 6, but he pussyfooted around and dragged his feet on fucking everything so much that basically nothing has been dealt with or constructively changed since the coup attempt occurred.
There are a LOT of things he could have done in a lot of areas that require neither Congress nor the courts.
Not to mention, he was so goddamn focused on “reaching across the aisle” that he picked a guy for AG that clearly doesn’t have a strong interest in, you know, preventing the fascists from winning, because he’s in the same party as the fascists.
The President using the armed forces to assassinate a political rival would be immune to prosecution under this ruling.
A President’s use of the military is a power granted to them under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. In order to prosecute for this hypothetical assassination, they would first need to prove that providing orders as Commander in Chief was somehow an unofficial act.
This is one of the specific examples Sotomayor listed in her dissenting opinion on this ruling.
SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It’s not like they’re consistent.
SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It’s not like they’re consistent.
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.
The President’s authority as Commander in Chief is a core constitutional power, as granted in Article II, Section 2. This example is not hyperbolic.
I’m not exactly excited about Harris, but putting a former prosecutor in office at least makes me think she couldn’t possibly put in a worse AG than Garland, at a time when we desperately need a firebrand in the position.
He turned out to be a decent president, except for the massive, glaring failure to build any sort of meaningful bulwark against fascism. He had, like, the absolute best justification and mandate to aggressively crack down on the neofascists with Jan 6, but he pussyfooted around and dragged his feet on fucking everything so much that basically nothing has been dealt with or constructively changed since the coup attempt occurred.
I love how you skip the part where Congress blocked everything the SCotUS didn’t. That’s so efficient.
There are a LOT of things he could have done in a lot of areas that require neither Congress nor the courts.
Not to mention, he was so goddamn focused on “reaching across the aisle” that he picked a guy for AG that clearly doesn’t have a strong interest in, you know, preventing the fascists from winning, because he’s in the same party as the fascists.
Go on
Well he has absolute immunity now. Could hang them all on the Whitehouse lawn. /s
/s ?
The President using the armed forces to assassinate a political rival would be immune to prosecution under this ruling.
A President’s use of the military is a power granted to them under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. In order to prosecute for this hypothetical assassination, they would first need to prove that providing orders as Commander in Chief was somehow an unofficial act.
This is one of the specific examples Sotomayor listed in her dissenting opinion on this ruling.
SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It’s not like they’re consistent.
That’s why if Biden were to ever use this power, he’d have to go after SCOTUS first.
The President’s authority as Commander in Chief is a core constitutional power, as granted in Article II, Section 2. This example is not hyperbolic.
What should he have done against fascism?
Well, not picking an AG with no interest in prosecuting perpetrators of a literal fucking coup attempt would have been a start.
Very true. I’m wondering if Garland is still holding out hope that he somehow gets on SCOTUS, as well.
I’m not exactly excited about Harris, but putting a former prosecutor in office at least makes me think she couldn’t possibly put in a worse AG than Garland, at a time when we desperately need a firebrand in the position.
Plenty of opportunity to be proven wrong though 🙄