A distinguished group of retired four-star generals and admirals from the U.S. military have argued in a brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday that Donald Trump’s claims of absolute “presidential immunity” from criminal prosecution tied to Jan. 6 is an “assault” on the “foundational commitments” underpinning democracy and if his argument is allowed to succeed before them later this month, it threatens “to subvert the careful balance between the executive and legislative branches struck in the Constitution.”

The 38-page amicus brief features 19 authors, all of them decorated retired admirals, generals or secretaries from branches of the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force respectively. On April 25, the high court is poised to hear Trump’s question of immunity against prosecution for his alleged criminal conspiracy to subvert the results of the 2020 election. and according to the brief, these are arguments that should be approached with extreme caution.

  • @paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    587 months ago

    How the fuck is this even before the Supreme Court? It shouldn’t have even been a question and it should’ve just been laughed out of Court when it was proposed. I can see SCOTUS ruling to give it to him, under the idea that Biden would be too principled to actually make use of that new power (instead of say ordering the assassination of Russian agents from a certain political party, like he should).

    • @fluxion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      The second they rule in Trump’s favor I’m all for forcefully removing the SC and implementing massive ethics reform and judicial review. And no law shall stop it, because the President is above all reproach, including, apparently, a literal insurrection.

      • @BorgDrone
        link
        277 months ago

        Biden should just announce that he will have Trump and the entire SC executed if they decide the president has absolute immunity.

            • @VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              67 months ago

              Yeah, we’re past the point where this can be settled peaceful for certain anyways.

              If Trump wins we’re in for a revenge tour, and if he loses there will be some form of major conflict. We have roughly 8 months to rip the band-aid off.

              And before anyone tells me there won’t be a major conflict if he loses, let me remind you. He was trying to be discreet when he called his supporters up for the insurrection. All he wanted at the time was for them to delay the proceedings regarding the inauguration. The man is out of time regarding all the cases that have been building up against him, he doesn’t have it in him to keep this up. If/when he does not get the presidency he won’t be discreet, he will likely call for all out war.

          • @BorgDrone
            link
            117 months ago

            It would highlight how dumb the argument that the president has absolute immunity is, the SC would rule against it and that would be the end of it.

    • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      17 months ago

      The Supreme Court chose to rule on this after the courts in Colorado already ruled that the president was not an exception to the insurrection clause. They didn’t have to, they wanted to.