Sotomayor: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assasinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?

“That could well be an official act,” Trump lawyer John Sauer says

    • @CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      153
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Obviously, why wouldn’t he? This is potentially the dumbest argument ever heard in a court room and we’re all supposed to sit here and entertain its plausibility. What a joke.

      • @Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        88
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        we’re all supposed to sit here and entertain its plausibility.

        We’re all here because more than one of these judges is entertaining its plausibility. Listening to some of the questions coming from a couple of these judges, there is a very real possibility that they actually declare Trump at least partially immune, leading to the lower courts having to re-litigate the issues again (which would delay Trump’s trials by years), or outright giving him enough immunity to make his current cases go away.

        It’s important to note that this would include the state cases. If Trump were to return to office, he could in theory pardon himself and make the federal cases go away but can’t do anything about the state ones. If the SC were to rule he’s immune, the state courts can’t touch him either.

        Honestly, I think the judges are just trying to figure out how they can rule narrowly enough to make sure Trump walks away scot-free while also ensuring that Biden and other future presidents don’t get the same treatment.

        • @eric5949@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          285 months ago

          Trump was not president for the crimes in NY or the retention of documents AFTER he was president. Of course it’ll be delayed and litigated, but “president is immune” does not make trumps problems go away unless they go “president is immune for the rest of their lives” which is even more insane.

          • @nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            45 months ago

            unless they go “president is immune for the rest of their lives” which is even more insane.

            Alito pretty much did argue that.

            He said presidents won’t leave office peacefully if they aren’t able to retire to security without threats of prosecution.

        • Bipta
          link
          fedilink
          125 months ago

          4 justices have to vote to hear a case at the Supreme Court. I don’t understand why they’d ever choose to.

        • bean
          link
          fedilink
          6
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Why not have Biden just assassinate Trump then? He likely wouldn’t have to deal with a long drawn out court decision. He can be done with it and move on. It’s horrible to consider, but I’m so so so so so so so so so sick of Trump. Everyday I’m bombarded with orange pulp. 😆

          • @Serinus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            85 months ago

            Just put them in a jail. And put enough Republican congresspeople in jail to have the majority. And then declare they can leave as soon as a bill is passed making the stupid “immunity” shit illegal.

            You can demonstrate the issues without killing anyone.

          • Goku
            link
            fedilink
            65 months ago

            The kicker for the immunity is that he can be impeached and convicted by congress…

            So you’re only immune if you’re a republican and you have enough votes in the senate… Lord knows Democrats would convict each other but republicans will toe the line.

    • theprogressivist
      link
      fedilink
      445 months ago

      I’m sure they’ll frame it in a way where this only applies to Trump, and no former or future presidents will have that ability.

      • teft
        link
        fedilink
        425 months ago

        Same as Bush v Gore

        Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances

        They’ll stick that in their opinion and say that this case isn’t binding on future cases therefore it doesn’t set precedent.

        • @MrVilliam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          145 months ago

          That’s a paradox. The only precedent it set was that a decision could withhold setting a precedent.

      • Bipta
        link
        fedilink
        165 months ago

        If the Supreme Court were to greenlight this, it becomes the only logical choice in terms of preservation of the self and the state…

        My opponent will use this power for great evil, so I must use it first to circumvent that.

        • VaultBoyNewVegas
          link
          fedilink
          85 months ago

          I’m not even American so I can’t be president, I just want to the fucking Cheeto dead and his family.

    • Chainweasel
      link
      fedilink
      English
      135 months ago

      Trump? He’s just the start. I’m cleaning House, and Senate!

    • @Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      105 months ago

      You know as well as I do that we’ll sit on that high horse of morality, sniffing our own farts, while we get sniped right the fuck off that horse by a Republican who has no issues whatsoever with abusing that power.

    • @thr0w4w4y2@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      55 months ago

      If this is okayed then the next government will presumably be the last. So if that’s not Biden then he is comfortable handing over the torch to whomever wins. That doesn’t seem like a particularly nice choice to have to make.

    • @chakan2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      15 months ago

      Biden doesn’t have the balls for that…Trump, unfortunetely does (or he’s just too fucking stupid to realize the ramifications of it).