Trump v United States
July 1, 2024 7:40 AM Subscribe
The Supreme Court has found that: "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. There is no immunity for unofficial acts." CNN NYT WaPo
FORMER president?
posted by njohnson23 at 7:42 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 7:42 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
"Joe, wake up, you've just become God-Emperor of America!"
posted by mittens at 7:47 AM on July 1 [44 favorites]
posted by mittens at 7:47 AM on July 1 [44 favorites]
Yeah, what "official" acts does a former President perform other than, I dunno, ribbon-cutting at their official Presidential library? Once you're off the clock as Prez, the magic prosecution shield goes away, right?
posted by Strange Interlude at 7:48 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
posted by Strange Interlude at 7:48 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
If a lower court finds that those actions were not part of official acts he can be tried on them whether or not he's stumbled into the oval office again right?
Right?
posted by mazola at 7:49 AM on July 1 [2 favorites]
Right?
posted by mazola at 7:49 AM on July 1 [2 favorites]
I was wondering how they'd square the circle of not wanting to grant blanket immunity but punting the actual outcome out past the election. This is how they did it.
posted by tclark at 7:51 AM on July 1 [26 favorites]
posted by tclark at 7:51 AM on July 1 [26 favorites]
So who decides what's official and what's unofficial? Is fomenting an overthrow of the official duties of congress an official act?
As near as I can tell (NAL), this question gets thrown back to the lower courts.
posted by bluesky43 at 7:53 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
As near as I can tell (NAL), this question gets thrown back to the lower courts.
posted by bluesky43 at 7:53 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
This is really bad, but I don't want Corner Post to get buried. They just changed the statute of limitations for appealing a regulation 6 years from when an entity is first injured (instead of 6 years from when it was published). Meaning any new business can challenge any regulation, no matter how old or established.
posted by Garm at 7:53 AM on July 1 [23 favorites]
posted by Garm at 7:53 AM on July 1 [23 favorites]
If he stumbles back into the oval office, he can just pardon himself. If he doesn't, the Supreme Court can just declare all his acts were official. The Supreme Court has just ruled Trump is America's first dictator.
posted by dirigibleman at 7:54 AM on July 1 [21 favorites]
posted by dirigibleman at 7:54 AM on July 1 [21 favorites]
Strange Interlude: "Yeah, what "official" acts does a former President perform other than, I dunno, ribbon-cutting at their official Presidential library? Once you're off the clock as Prez, the magic prosecution shield goes away, right?"
If I understand correctly, this decision is saying that a former president retains immunity for "official acts" performed while in office; it has nothing to do with actions after leaving office.
posted by adamrice at 7:54 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
If I understand correctly, this decision is saying that a former president retains immunity for "official acts" performed while in office; it has nothing to do with actions after leaving office.
posted by adamrice at 7:54 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
If a lower court finds that those actions were not part of official acts he can be tried on them whether or not he's stumbled into the oval office again right?
Even if the district court finds the actions weren't official acts, the conservative majority gave the defense a clear roadmap for how to argue on appeal that 1) actually they were official acts and 2) even if they weren't, the prosecution doesn't have enough admissible evidence to prove it. But none of that will matter if Trump wins because he has clearly stated that he will tell the Department of Justice to drop the case. And between appointing a loyalist attorney general and US Attorneys and Schedule F'ing a bunch of the rest of the Department of Justice, the case would absolutely get dropped.
posted by jedicus at 7:55 AM on July 1 [12 favorites]
Even if the district court finds the actions weren't official acts, the conservative majority gave the defense a clear roadmap for how to argue on appeal that 1) actually they were official acts and 2) even if they weren't, the prosecution doesn't have enough admissible evidence to prove it. But none of that will matter if Trump wins because he has clearly stated that he will tell the Department of Justice to drop the case. And between appointing a loyalist attorney general and US Attorneys and Schedule F'ing a bunch of the rest of the Department of Justice, the case would absolutely get dropped.
posted by jedicus at 7:55 AM on July 1 [12 favorites]
So... an attempted Coup d'état, Jan 6 flavour... is that an official presidential act?
posted by uncle harold at 7:55 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]
posted by uncle harold at 7:55 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]
Under this opinion, Joe Biden could just order the military to execute Trump and he’d be immune from prosecution because it is a core constitutional responsibility to be the Commander in Chief.
We now live in a goddamned dictatorship with nothing between us and military rule except the good will of the people in the chain of command.
posted by Room 101 at 7:55 AM on July 1 [63 favorites]
We now live in a goddamned dictatorship with nothing between us and military rule except the good will of the people in the chain of command.
posted by Room 101 at 7:55 AM on July 1 [63 favorites]
If this isn't an invitation for an emergency re-balancing of the court, then what is?
What's stopping Biden? Certainly not any laws....
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:56 AM on July 1 [37 favorites]
What's stopping Biden? Certainly not any laws....
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:56 AM on July 1 [37 favorites]
NYT analysis (FWIW)
Chief Justice Roberts’ analysis suggests that Trump talking to Pence about the Electoral College vote might not be entitled to immunity because Congress has legislated extensively to define the vice president’s role, and the president plays no direct part in that process. Chief Justice Roberts suggests that another context — a president talking to a vice president about casting a tie-breaking 51st vote in the Senate on legislation that is part of the White House’s agenda — is more likely to be immune.
posted by bluesky43 at 7:58 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
Chief Justice Roberts’ analysis suggests that Trump talking to Pence about the Electoral College vote might not be entitled to immunity because Congress has legislated extensively to define the vice president’s role, and the president plays no direct part in that process. Chief Justice Roberts suggests that another context — a president talking to a vice president about casting a tie-breaking 51st vote in the Senate on legislation that is part of the White House’s agenda — is more likely to be immune.
posted by bluesky43 at 7:58 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
Decision here. Time to read (especially the dissents).
posted by mazola at 7:59 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
posted by mazola at 7:59 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
The problem with this immunity ruling for trying to prosecute Trump now is that nothing that is part of an official act can be used as evidence. So firing or threatening to fire an attorney general guy example. Or a speech, tweet, or other communication. None of that could be used as context or to prove intent.
The more general problem is that no official act c of the president can be prosecuted now, and corruption involves official acts by definition. Appointments, vetos, pardons, directing the military, etc are official acts, and so even if bribes are accepted, or they are used for otherwise criminal purposes, they can't be questioned.
posted by Garm at 8:00 AM on July 1 [31 favorites]
The more general problem is that no official act c of the president can be prosecuted now, and corruption involves official acts by definition. Appointments, vetos, pardons, directing the military, etc are official acts, and so even if bribes are accepted, or they are used for otherwise criminal purposes, they can't be questioned.
posted by Garm at 8:00 AM on July 1 [31 favorites]
I mean, Biden could always order the military to execute Trump. Obama demonstrated that the president has that power pretty conclusively.
posted by jy4m at 8:01 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]
posted by jy4m at 8:01 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]
We're only 10 days out from Trump's sentencing for his felony conviction--get us out of this pickle Judge Merchan!
posted by mittens at 8:02 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
posted by mittens at 8:02 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
So... an attempted Coup d'état, Jan 6 flavour... is that an official presidential act?
Sure, since the Supreme Court will just construe Trump's role in Jan 6 as having official discussions with other executive branch officials about official processes (supervising and certifying elections), and that's now absolutely off-limits from criminal prosecution. Indeed, the discussion itself can't even be used as evidence. So even if the conspiracy had been to, say, distribute military weapons to right-wing militias and have them descend on the Capitol, as long as Trump only spoke with other officials about it, none of those conversations could be used as evidence against him or to prove his intent. It fully legalizes Trump's mafia-style approach to the presidency.
so even if bribes are accepted, or they are used for otherwise criminal purposes, they can't be questioned.
Hell, as long as the bribe is given after the fact, then it's just an innocent "gratuity", as the court very recently declared.
posted by jedicus at 8:05 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
Sure, since the Supreme Court will just construe Trump's role in Jan 6 as having official discussions with other executive branch officials about official processes (supervising and certifying elections), and that's now absolutely off-limits from criminal prosecution. Indeed, the discussion itself can't even be used as evidence. So even if the conspiracy had been to, say, distribute military weapons to right-wing militias and have them descend on the Capitol, as long as Trump only spoke with other officials about it, none of those conversations could be used as evidence against him or to prove his intent. It fully legalizes Trump's mafia-style approach to the presidency.
so even if bribes are accepted, or they are used for otherwise criminal purposes, they can't be questioned.
Hell, as long as the bribe is given after the fact, then it's just an innocent "gratuity", as the court very recently declared.
posted by jedicus at 8:05 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
So who decides what's official and what's unofficial? Is fomenting an overthrow of the official duties of congress an official act?
Agreed. This gets punted down and will get punted back up when the prosecution tries to define which parts of an election are official duties of the President. I was under the belief that the answer to that question was "Zero. None of the duties are part of the office." but, time and time again, the rules will get bent.
posted by JoeZydeco at 8:05 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
Agreed. This gets punted down and will get punted back up when the prosecution tries to define which parts of an election are official duties of the President. I was under the belief that the answer to that question was "Zero. None of the duties are part of the office." but, time and time again, the rules will get bent.
posted by JoeZydeco at 8:05 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
Biden, rid us of this turbulent child-rapist felon.
posted by GoblinHoney at 8:05 AM on July 1 [28 favorites]
posted by GoblinHoney at 8:05 AM on July 1 [28 favorites]
Biden could always order the military to execute Trump. Obama demonstrated that the president has that power pretty conclusively.
Nah, the conservative majority on the court would just declare that to have been an unofficial act. Because any criminal prosecution of a current or former president is always going to end up at the Supreme Court at some point, what the court is really doing here is of a piece with many of its other decisions this term: arrogating to itself the ultimate decisive role in virtually every part of government, and then deciding in favor of conservative policy.
posted by jedicus at 8:07 AM on July 1 [44 favorites]
Nah, the conservative majority on the court would just declare that to have been an unofficial act. Because any criminal prosecution of a current or former president is always going to end up at the Supreme Court at some point, what the court is really doing here is of a piece with many of its other decisions this term: arrogating to itself the ultimate decisive role in virtually every part of government, and then deciding in favor of conservative policy.
posted by jedicus at 8:07 AM on July 1 [44 favorites]
Sotomayor's dissent, joined by Kagan and Jackson, starts on page 68 of the pdf mazola linked above. Jackson has additional thoughts starting on page 98.
posted by mediareport at 8:07 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
posted by mediareport at 8:07 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
Teddy Roosevelt: "No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it."
John Roberts: "Well, actually......"
posted by Frayed Knot at 8:08 AM on July 1 [29 favorites]
John Roberts: "Well, actually......"
posted by Frayed Knot at 8:08 AM on July 1 [29 favorites]
Gonna need a new Schoolhouse Rock song, I guess.
posted by non canadian guy at 8:10 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
posted by non canadian guy at 8:10 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
"This July Fourth, celebrate the return of the Monarchy!"
posted by mittens at 8:11 AM on July 1 [27 favorites]
posted by mittens at 8:11 AM on July 1 [27 favorites]
Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes
a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution
and system of Government, that no man is above the law.
Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about
the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump
all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answeringfor criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.
posted by GoblinHoney at 8:11 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution
and system of Government, that no man is above the law.
Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about
the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump
all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answeringfor criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.
posted by GoblinHoney at 8:11 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
Once again I'm left asking the question "Why Trump?". Why go through all this trouble and debase the core American principals for that guy? If you're going to end the republic and declare a king, why pick a petulant, erratic man-baby who is just as quick to throw his allies under the bus as his enemies? Why debase yourself, your office, and the Constitution for an ungrateful idiot?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:16 AM on July 1 [75 favorites]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:16 AM on July 1 [75 favorites]
Pro-rogue the court. Article 3 requires they be in Good Behavior to hold the office. You can't remove them as officers (that's impeachment), and Congress ain't doing shit, all, or fuck about it unless the GOP can magically find 16 democrats to convict in the Senate.
And now he can't be prosecuted for that and can retaliate against prosecution attempts.
Seize mcfucking power back from the Outback 6 (No rules, just Right) on the court, the advertised plan bellowed from the heavens by the GOP is that they will immediately be running similar plays if they win in November.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:16 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
And now he can't be prosecuted for that and can retaliate against prosecution attempts.
Seize mcfucking power back from the Outback 6 (No rules, just Right) on the court, the advertised plan bellowed from the heavens by the GOP is that they will immediately be running similar plays if they win in November.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:16 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
Even if Biden wins and the case continues, it will be in name only. The question of if an act is really-truly official can be appealed. So the trial court says ok I am applying this new made up test, and these acts are not official, let’s have a trial. Trump appeals to the court of appeals and then there is an appeal to the Supreme Court. That takes maybe 2 years. Repeat as needed forever.
posted by kerf at 8:18 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
posted by kerf at 8:18 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
1776-2016, its time to found a new republic. Democracy for all.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 8:20 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 8:20 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
@Kerf, by couching it as "Biden wins", you're playing into the "us vs them" attitude. This is "The People of US" vs. Trump, not Biden vs. Trump.
posted by kschang at 8:20 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
posted by kschang at 8:20 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
JILL BIDEN: Joe, they did it. The Court has ruled that as long as it is an official act, you can do anything you want. You're a god walking the Earth now. What do you want to do next?
JOE BIDEN: (raises himself up, his eyes glowing in Dark Brandon mode) I officially declare that I want some MOTHERFUCKING ICE CREAM.
posted by delfin at 8:22 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
JOE BIDEN: (raises himself up, his eyes glowing in Dark Brandon mode) I officially declare that I want some MOTHERFUCKING ICE CREAM.
posted by delfin at 8:22 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
Why go through all this trouble and debase the core American principals for that guy?
Why, Richard, it profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales?”
posted by gauche at 8:23 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
Why, Richard, it profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales?”
posted by gauche at 8:23 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
We're only 10 days out from Trump's sentencing for his felony conviction--get us out of this pickle Judge Merchan!
Prepare for disappointment.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:23 AM on July 1 [21 favorites]
Prepare for disappointment.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:23 AM on July 1 [21 favorites]
Roberts directed the lower court to sort through Smith’s indictment, to sift official acts from unofficial ones. He tipped his hand though, classifying some of the charges himself.Source.
Trump’s attempts to leverage the Justice Department to convince states to replace their electors with fake ones — and his threats to replace the acting attorney general — fall under the purview of official acts, so Trump cannot be prosecuted for them.
Disclaimer: I don't see how the president talking to states about electors could possibly be considered "official acts" and I haven't read the decision.
posted by mark k at 8:26 AM on July 1 [8 favorites]
I can see a kernel of logic in the underlying idea that a President should enjoy some level of immunity from prosecution for official acts under the core Presidential duties, but the decision here takes it way too far, both in making that immunity absolute and in extending it to goddamn near anything that could remotely be considered an official act, corrupt intent be damned.
posted by wierdo at 8:27 AM on July 1 [8 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 8:27 AM on July 1 [8 favorites]
"With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
We are all Justice Sotomayor today.
posted by The Bellman at 8:28 AM on July 1 [43 favorites]
We are all Justice Sotomayor today.
posted by The Bellman at 8:28 AM on July 1 [43 favorites]
From the majority opinion:
From the dissent:
As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom[eye roll]
that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually
does today—conclude that immunity extends to official dis-
cussions between the President and his Attorney General,
and then remand to the lower courts to determine “in the
first instance” whether and to what extent Trump’s remain-
ing alleged conduct is entitled to immunity. Supra, at 24,
28, 30.
...
Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since
the founding, no President has ever faced criminal
charges—let alone for his conduct in office. And accordingly
no court has ever been faced with the question of a Presi-
dent’s immunity from prosecution. All that our Nation’s
practice establishes on the subject is silence.
From the dissent:
The majority’s single-minded fixation on the President’sposted by mazola at 8:28 AM on July 1 [43 favorites]
need for boldness and dispatch ignores the countervailing
need for accountability and restraint. The Framers were
not so single-minded. In the Federalist Papers, after “en-
deavor[ing] to show” that the Executive designed by the
Constitution “combines . . . all the requisites to energy,” Al-
exander Hamilton asked a separate, equally important
question: “Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a
republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due re-
sponsibility?” The Federalist No. 77, p. 507 (J. Harvard Li-
brary ed. 2009). The answer then was yes, based in part
upon the President’s vulnerability to “prosecution in the
common course of law.” Ibid. The answer after today is no.
Never in the history of our Republic has a President had
reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal
prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate
the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former
Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occu-
pant of that office misuses official power for personal gain,
the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not pro-
vide a backstop.
With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
From TPM:
Roberts directed the lower court to sort through Smith’s indictment, to sift official acts from unofficial ones. He tipped his hand though, classifying some of the charges himself.posted by Going To Maine at 8:29 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
Trump’s attempts to leverage the Justice Department to convince states to replace their electors with fake ones — and his threats to replace the acting attorney general — fall under the purview of official acts, so Trump cannot be prosecuted for them
Every goddamn thing Hillary Clinton said was right.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:30 AM on July 1 [54 favorites]
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:30 AM on July 1 [54 favorites]
Ordering (edit, sorry, 'suggesting') people to do illegal things is an official act? I mean, WTF?
posted by AzraelBrown at 8:31 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
posted by AzraelBrown at 8:31 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since the founding, no President has ever faced criminal charges—let alone for his conduct in office. And accordingly no court has ever been faced with the question of a President’s immunity from prosecution.
"And therefore, now that we are faced with the question, the obvious correct answer is to be as deferential as possible to presidential power, since that's definitely what the framers had in mind, having just fought a war in opposition to unchecked power in the hands of a single person who enjoyed literal sovereign immunity."
posted by jedicus at 8:31 AM on July 1 [21 favorites]
"And therefore, now that we are faced with the question, the obvious correct answer is to be as deferential as possible to presidential power, since that's definitely what the framers had in mind, having just fought a war in opposition to unchecked power in the hands of a single person who enjoyed literal sovereign immunity."
posted by jedicus at 8:31 AM on July 1 [21 favorites]
Once again I'm left asking the question "Why Trump?" ... why pick a petulant, erratic man-baby
It was the people who picked him. It's been clear since the 2016 primaries that the entire Republican establishment despises him. Now they fear him too much to oppose him, or they think they can control him, an approach which has some risks.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:32 AM on July 1 [7 favorites]
It was the people who picked him. It's been clear since the 2016 primaries that the entire Republican establishment despises him. Now they fear him too much to oppose him, or they think they can control him, an approach which has some risks.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:32 AM on July 1 [7 favorites]
Joe Biden has the opportunity to do something extremely cool right now
I, for one, prefer the sound of Biden Augustus more than Trump Augustus, though a republic would be nicer.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:32 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
I, for one, prefer the sound of Biden Augustus more than Trump Augustus, though a republic would be nicer.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:32 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
You know what? I've changed my mind a bit.
Trumpers want a divinely powered executive with immunity for all of its official acts? Fine. Biden should resign this afternoon and turn all executive power over to a motivated, angry black woman with prosecutorial experience.
posted by delfin at 8:33 AM on July 1 [70 favorites]
Trumpers want a divinely powered executive with immunity for all of its official acts? Fine. Biden should resign this afternoon and turn all executive power over to a motivated, angry black woman with prosecutorial experience.
posted by delfin at 8:33 AM on July 1 [70 favorites]
I hope this inspires Democrats to finally play some fucking brinksmanship.
It's not as if Republicans haven't spent the last few months broadly telegraphing that they'll prosecute Biden once they have control of the Justice Department. It's not as if Republicans haven't been not-so-subtly suggesting that they will "chill" the Presidency in the exact way that Roberts cites as a reason to grant broad-based immunity for official acts.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:34 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
It's not as if Republicans haven't spent the last few months broadly telegraphing that they'll prosecute Biden once they have control of the Justice Department. It's not as if Republicans haven't been not-so-subtly suggesting that they will "chill" the Presidency in the exact way that Roberts cites as a reason to grant broad-based immunity for official acts.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:34 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
"This July Fourth, celebrate the return of the Monarchy!"
That's all conservatism has ever been in this country.
posted by JohnFromGR at 8:34 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
That's all conservatism has ever been in this country.
posted by JohnFromGR at 8:34 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
One assumes the administration, knowing the opinion would come out today, will have prepared a statement outlining what they plan to do about this? Other than exhorting people to vote? I ask because it's been an hour now and I haven't seen anything.
posted by mittens at 8:35 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
posted by mittens at 8:35 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
It's so weird that we spent eight years letting Trump get away with whatever the fuck he wanted, only for his handpicked Court majority to codify it in an official ruling.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:36 AM on July 1 [21 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:36 AM on July 1 [21 favorites]
Truth is voting is the democratic remedy to this.
Don't vote a convicted felon into a law-free office is what we're left with.
posted by mazola at 8:39 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
Don't vote a convicted felon into a law-free office is what we're left with.
posted by mazola at 8:39 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
Roberts court has decided to be utter cowards and weasel their way out of this one by introducing a new legal distinction for Things the Person Does While President then kicking it down to the Federal courts to decide whether this distinction holds, so that they can then, later on, decide whether the decision of the lower court as to whether the distinction holds, holds. They've lawyer-brain magicked their way out of making a decision, reserving the right to decide later, when it probably won't matter, since now there's like 0 chance of Trump's federal prosecutions wrapping up before November. And if he wins, the trial is pointless since he can pardon himself (that's an official act, i'm sure!). If he loses, well, it will be good to convict him but it's also pointless. FUCKING COWARDS IN ROBES
posted by dis_integration at 8:39 AM on July 1 [19 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 8:39 AM on July 1 [19 favorites]
Gee whiz gang, I don't want to shock anyone, but I'm starting to think maybe the system is rigged.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:39 AM on July 1 [23 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:39 AM on July 1 [23 favorites]
And shame on Republicans going along with this.
posted by mazola at 8:40 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
posted by mazola at 8:40 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
"I know the institutions won't save us, but what if today was the day they decided to try and save us?"
posted by penduluum at 8:40 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
posted by penduluum at 8:40 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
I give up. There seems to be literally nothing the man can do and not get away with it. He could (redacted) (redacted), then (redacted) (redacted), then (redacted) (redacted), then (redacted) (redacted), all on live television, and finish up by using the nuclear codes on a US state, and he'd still win at everything. All he does is win and he gets out of more shit than Houdini. The tide seems so strong and the opposing forces are tired and not so competent and the system is rigged in his favor at every turn. As far as I can tell, he made a deal with the devil to get literally everything he wants and I don't see how anything is going to stop him now. I am In Despair and in acceptance mode that he's going to take over for life in a few months. Hell, Biden's been behind all year and that was even before the debate. Short of (redacted) happening, I don't see any way out of the impending nightmare.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:41 AM on July 1 [29 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:41 AM on July 1 [29 favorites]
It's almost poetic to elevate the office of President to Kinghood right before the 4th of July. Sort of a snake-eating-it's-tail moment. An Americoroborous.
posted by mrjohnmuller at 8:41 AM on July 1 [19 favorites]
posted by mrjohnmuller at 8:41 AM on July 1 [19 favorites]
It's not as if Republicans haven't spent the last few months broadly telegraphing that they'll prosecute Biden once they have control of the Justice Department.
well hey at least now Biden's immune from prosecution too amirite?
(all of this is horrible)
posted by martin q blank at 8:42 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
well hey at least now Biden's immune from prosecution too amirite?
(all of this is horrible)
posted by martin q blank at 8:42 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
Now would be an optimal moment for Biden to kick Clarence Thomas off the court for a history of conflict of interest.
posted by BigHeartedGuy at 8:44 AM on July 1 [18 favorites]
posted by BigHeartedGuy at 8:44 AM on July 1 [18 favorites]
> well hey at least now Biden's immune from prosecution too amirite?
It turns out everything Biden does is not an official act, while everything Trump does is an official act. Sorry that's just how it works, nothing we can do about it
posted by dis_integration at 8:44 AM on July 1 [39 favorites]
It turns out everything Biden does is not an official act, while everything Trump does is an official act. Sorry that's just how it works, nothing we can do about it
posted by dis_integration at 8:44 AM on July 1 [39 favorites]
The president is not above the law. He could still be prosecuted for sleeping under a bridge (unless he did so officially)
posted by paper chromatographologist at 8:45 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
posted by paper chromatographologist at 8:45 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
Biden has absolute immunity and dementia!
Can't be held responsible and not criminally responsible! A Presidential twofer!
</snark>
posted by mazola at 8:45 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Can't be held responsible and not criminally responsible! A Presidential twofer!
</snark>
posted by mazola at 8:45 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
I can think of no greater official presidential act to preserve the Constitution than Biden securing Trump to a dolly and making him wear a hockey mask.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:45 AM on July 1 [2 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:45 AM on July 1 [2 favorites]
Is the opposition put on actual trial or just shot in the nearest public square?
posted by Slackermagee at 8:45 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
posted by Slackermagee at 8:45 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
this? Other than exhorting people to vote? I ask because it's been an hour now and I haven't seen anything.
Nothing meaningful, and the Dem elites will continue to coordinate their continued success and wealth in the new order.
We’re definitely entering one of those periods of history where force in the street, blood in the street, and making the rich fear for their lives are going to be necessary to make change. I hate it, I hoped never to live through one, but that’s where we are.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:46 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
Nothing meaningful, and the Dem elites will continue to coordinate their continued success and wealth in the new order.
We’re definitely entering one of those periods of history where force in the street, blood in the street, and making the rich fear for their lives are going to be necessary to make change. I hate it, I hoped never to live through one, but that’s where we are.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:46 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
I give up. There seems to be literally nothing the man can do and not get away with it.
So this must be what it's like to have to life in a world where someone can sell their soul to the devil in exchange for power and influence.
Funny how those kind of stories always present the person getting their eternal comeuppance as some kind of just resolution while conveniently ignoring all the earthly damage they do while in possession of their unlimited, unholy powers.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:48 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
So this must be what it's like to have to life in a world where someone can sell their soul to the devil in exchange for power and influence.
Funny how those kind of stories always present the person getting their eternal comeuppance as some kind of just resolution while conveniently ignoring all the earthly damage they do while in possession of their unlimited, unholy powers.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:48 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
Best grim joke I've seen (Twitter link): "I can’t believe the Supreme Court just ruled that the president can sleep outdoors in a public space."
posted by coffeecat at 8:49 AM on July 1 [33 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 8:49 AM on July 1 [33 favorites]
Sadly the sclerotic, spineless democratic party will do absolutely nothing except maybe write a strongly worded email to Roberts (Schumer and Durbin seem up for this task). Biden's team will do absolutely nothing, except maybe some laser focused campaign events on Pell Grants and the Chips Act. Harris and the women in the Admin will likely scream behind close doors about Dobbs and the coming Handmaids Tale America, yet in public will talk about the Chips act and Pell Grants cause Frank Lutz tells them to do so. Matthew Karzmaryk runs America.
I continue to be completely stumped by ordinary conservatives bending the knee. Roberts et al are clearly drunk on their own power. Somehow this run of shredding, well, everything, doesn't make them immune to a Trumpest Autocracy. Do they honestly think Bannon (and his thousand year Reich) and Flynn (god forbid, but the guy really does want the Handmaids Tale) will defer to them? They'd better pray it's just an Orbanist/Erdoganist authoritarian regime (they get put out to pasture) and not a Putin-esque / Xi- dictatorship? Cause they die under those.
Does NO ONE in power ready a fucking history book?
posted by WatTylerJr at 8:49 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
I continue to be completely stumped by ordinary conservatives bending the knee. Roberts et al are clearly drunk on their own power. Somehow this run of shredding, well, everything, doesn't make them immune to a Trumpest Autocracy. Do they honestly think Bannon (and his thousand year Reich) and Flynn (god forbid, but the guy really does want the Handmaids Tale) will defer to them? They'd better pray it's just an Orbanist/Erdoganist authoritarian regime (they get put out to pasture) and not a Putin-esque / Xi- dictatorship? Cause they die under those.
Does NO ONE in power ready a fucking history book?
posted by WatTylerJr at 8:49 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
Also, you can tell the majority of operating purely on a results-oriented basis because they make heavy use of citations to concurring opinions in past cases, not the actual binding precedent of the majority. Basically trying to cover up for the fact that they're just making shit up.
posted by wierdo at 8:49 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 8:49 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
You know where all this is heading, right? Changing the 22nd Amendment back to having no limits to how many terms a president can serve.
posted by ashbury at 8:50 AM on July 1 [14 favorites]
posted by ashbury at 8:50 AM on July 1 [14 favorites]
Pack the court. Now. It's clear that the Rep's are planning to hand this election to the SC, who are in their pocket, so the Dems best option, while there's still time, is to flip the court, right now.
posted by OHenryPacey at 8:52 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
posted by OHenryPacey at 8:52 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
November 6th we’re going to have mobs rushing the vote counting in every state. This will make the Brooks Brothers Brigade in Florida in 2000 look like amateur hour.
Democrats won’t do anything.
Time for Biden to do something for the history books. Not holding my breath.
And frankly all I care about at this stage is the US dollar remaining as the global reserve currency and that’s going to go out the window. Kiss your lifestyle goodbye.
posted by Farce_First at 8:52 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
Democrats won’t do anything.
Time for Biden to do something for the history books. Not holding my breath.
And frankly all I care about at this stage is the US dollar remaining as the global reserve currency and that’s going to go out the window. Kiss your lifestyle goodbye.
posted by Farce_First at 8:52 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
The top-line summary of the holding actually sounds correct to me, at least in the abstract. Official acts are presumptively immune; non-official acts are not. If you take very simple examples from both categories, that's the right result. If a president murders their spouse, that's not an official act and should be prosecutable. But if a president issues an executive order that a future political rival says was criminal, that should be immune. Why should official policy acts be immune? Well, it isn't very hard for me to think of a very near future in which a Republican administration decides to, say, prosecute President Biden for violations of the Comstock Act because under his policies, the Department of Defense pays for military members' abortions in the case of rape or incest. It's not even absurd, in the abstract, for SCOTUS to say that a trial court should take evidence and figure out in the first instance whether certain actions were official or unofficial.
The problem, it seems, is the standard that official acts are presumptively immune and then setting up a standard for overriding that presumption that is so high that it's basically insurmountable. There's no escape valve for saying, sure, this sounds like an official act but the way the president did it was so egregious and illegal that they are no longer immune from prosecution. It should be a high bar, but not so insurmountable that there is literally nothing anyone can do in the face of treason or using one's official power for personal and corrupt reasons.
posted by alligatorpear at 8:54 AM on July 1 [14 favorites]
The problem, it seems, is the standard that official acts are presumptively immune and then setting up a standard for overriding that presumption that is so high that it's basically insurmountable. There's no escape valve for saying, sure, this sounds like an official act but the way the president did it was so egregious and illegal that they are no longer immune from prosecution. It should be a high bar, but not so insurmountable that there is literally nothing anyone can do in the face of treason or using one's official power for personal and corrupt reasons.
posted by alligatorpear at 8:54 AM on July 1 [14 favorites]
> You know where all this is heading, right? Changing the 22nd Amendment back to having no limits to how many terms a president can serve.
I mean, if you declare an emergency, then refusing to step down is an official act. The only remedy would be impeachment, which, well, would only happen if the congress and senate are held by the non-presidential party. However, if you arrest the Senate, because your emergency powers and maybe the emergency is the Senate is full of traitors! (e.g., members of the other party), well, that's an official act. You see, it doesn't matter what the constitution says anymore, since the President can do anything so long as it is an "official act" except nobody knows what is or isn't an official act and well, it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide that, which would be an interesting struggle for them if, for example, the President had just had a few Senators arrested and imprisoned, and was glaring really madly in a generally southeastern direction from the White House.
posted by dis_integration at 8:55 AM on July 1 [24 favorites]
I mean, if you declare an emergency, then refusing to step down is an official act. The only remedy would be impeachment, which, well, would only happen if the congress and senate are held by the non-presidential party. However, if you arrest the Senate, because your emergency powers and maybe the emergency is the Senate is full of traitors! (e.g., members of the other party), well, that's an official act. You see, it doesn't matter what the constitution says anymore, since the President can do anything so long as it is an "official act" except nobody knows what is or isn't an official act and well, it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide that, which would be an interesting struggle for them if, for example, the President had just had a few Senators arrested and imprisoned, and was glaring really madly in a generally southeastern direction from the White House.
posted by dis_integration at 8:55 AM on July 1 [24 favorites]
The (republican ) president, under self declared 'official acts' determines that the (bullshit) border emergency * is of such drastic import that it can suspend all national elections indefinitely until it determines that emergency 'over' (there is no emergency at the border).
The (democratic) president vastly exceeded his authority by forgiving a few dozen thousand under $10k student loans.
* Trump2: The Vengeance Administration is going to use that bullshit 'cause' to 'justify' all their coming authoritarian nightmare-ish rule.
posted by WatTylerJr at 8:57 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]
The (democratic) president vastly exceeded his authority by forgiving a few dozen thousand under $10k student loans.
* Trump2: The Vengeance Administration is going to use that bullshit 'cause' to 'justify' all their coming authoritarian nightmare-ish rule.
posted by WatTylerJr at 8:57 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]
Lotta silver-lining hay getting made out of "Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one the Court recognizes[.] The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law."
But the decision also says that any official acts cannot be scrutinized for evidence for prosecution for unofficial acts. And "[i]n dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives." And acts aren't unofficial just because they're illegal.
Make no mistake -- it's not blanket immunity in name, but no criminal proceedings will ever succeed against a President. Never, none.
Changing the 22nd Amendment back to having no limits to how many terms a president can serve.
Why? He wouldn't have to. All he has to do is not leave, and assert that his continued service in the role of President is a core duty of the Presidency.
posted by penduluum at 8:57 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
But the decision also says that any official acts cannot be scrutinized for evidence for prosecution for unofficial acts. And "[i]n dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives." And acts aren't unofficial just because they're illegal.
Make no mistake -- it's not blanket immunity in name, but no criminal proceedings will ever succeed against a President. Never, none.
Changing the 22nd Amendment back to having no limits to how many terms a president can serve.
Why? He wouldn't have to. All he has to do is not leave, and assert that his continued service in the role of President is a core duty of the Presidency.
posted by penduluum at 8:57 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
From Thomas' concurrence:
posted by mazola at 8:59 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
Few things would threaten our constitutional order moreSoooo close. Elaborate on those 'few things' please.
than criminally prosecuting a former President for his offi-
cial acts.
posted by mazola at 8:59 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
Street protests are not going to solve a goddamn thing, and are going to get a lot of protestors killed. It won't start with drone strikes, but it will get there pretty quickly.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:59 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:59 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
The election is too close for Democrats to bother doing anything about this.
a) They're too afraid that whatever they do will upset a potentially narrow win and
b) Narrowly winning means they get claim that everything's "normal" while kicking the can down the road for another four years.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat. And VOTE HARDER!!!!!!11!1!!1!!!!!
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:00 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
a) They're too afraid that whatever they do will upset a potentially narrow win and
b) Narrowly winning means they get claim that everything's "normal" while kicking the can down the road for another four years.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat. And VOTE HARDER!!!!!!11!1!!1!!!!!
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:00 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
I'm not terribly concerned about the immunity for official acts, although it will cause a major clusterfuck in deciding what is official and what is not. That will end up back in the Supreme Court multiple times most likely.
No, what really concerns me is "immunized conduct can’t be used as evidence in a trial for conduct for which a former president is not otherwise immune." That is a major major loophole that will make it virtually impossible to ever establish intent.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:01 AM on July 1 [20 favorites]
No, what really concerns me is "immunized conduct can’t be used as evidence in a trial for conduct for which a former president is not otherwise immune." That is a major major loophole that will make it virtually impossible to ever establish intent.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:01 AM on July 1 [20 favorites]
They're never gonna call a plane to send us to the Shithole Country. They can't. Because we're already here. This is the shithole country.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:02 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:02 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
Apologize for the spoilers, but despite this ruling, TFG would 100% subject Biden to show trials for a variety of official acts and the Supreme Court would just decide there were crucial distinctions in play that allowed for blah blah motherfucking blah blah.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:03 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:03 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
Once again I'm left asking the question "Why Trump?".
Because he's the ideal face for the conservative agenda.
He wants power but doesn't want to do anything with that power. He has no personal ideology or goals beyond having people fawn over him. He'll just do whatever his backers and advisors tell him, which has already resulted in almost every conservative fantasy coming true.
And crucially, as Mr.Know-it-some notes, he is also electable. Maybe some think tank or Federalist Society robot might be more capable of enacting their agenda but such a person would never win either the base or the general election. Trump has a certain cunning and media savvy that has lead to a sizable portion of conservatives almost literally worshipping him and enough of the rest grudgingly acknowledging him to push him over the top.
Anyone pushing a conservative agenda couldn't ask for a better candidate.
posted by star gentle uterus at 9:04 AM on July 1 [25 favorites]
Because he's the ideal face for the conservative agenda.
He wants power but doesn't want to do anything with that power. He has no personal ideology or goals beyond having people fawn over him. He'll just do whatever his backers and advisors tell him, which has already resulted in almost every conservative fantasy coming true.
And crucially, as Mr.Know-it-some notes, he is also electable. Maybe some think tank or Federalist Society robot might be more capable of enacting their agenda but such a person would never win either the base or the general election. Trump has a certain cunning and media savvy that has lead to a sizable portion of conservatives almost literally worshipping him and enough of the rest grudgingly acknowledging him to push him over the top.
Anyone pushing a conservative agenda couldn't ask for a better candidate.
posted by star gentle uterus at 9:04 AM on July 1 [25 favorites]
I thought the 'debate' narrative was the worst thing from last week (US focused - France getting ready to go hard right is also pretty bad, Gaza is truly awful and the Sudan might be the worst). The eviscerating Chevron was the worst, but clearly this one is hands down the worst of all.
Hope for Orban, maybe get Stalin (I want to say Hitler cause of all the nazis populating the fascist party, but didnt want to violate Godwin). Doubt we get Mao or Pol Pot, but hey, so probably did the Chinese and Cambodians.
Please please please women save us (again). Assuming the Magas dont use their love of violence to destroy the elections.
Great job Garland and Smith!
posted by WatTylerJr at 9:04 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
Hope for Orban, maybe get Stalin (I want to say Hitler cause of all the nazis populating the fascist party, but didnt want to violate Godwin). Doubt we get Mao or Pol Pot, but hey, so probably did the Chinese and Cambodians.
Please please please women save us (again). Assuming the Magas dont use their love of violence to destroy the elections.
Great job Garland and Smith!
posted by WatTylerJr at 9:04 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
Street protests are not going to solve a goddamn thing, and are going to get a lot of protestors killed. It won't start with drone strikes, but it will get there pretty quickly.
I don't mean politely with signs and banners. Also, forcing a government to show its true face by beating and murdering its citizens, particularly en masse, can definitely (obv., not always) be a destabilizing force for dictatorships.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:17 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
I don't mean politely with signs and banners. Also, forcing a government to show its true face by beating and murdering its citizens, particularly en masse, can definitely (obv., not always) be a destabilizing force for dictatorships.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:17 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
As a criminal defense attorney, I was amused to see the dissent begin with "The indictment paints a stark portrait of a President desperate to stay in power." Well, no kidding; indictments tend to paint stark portraits of BAD PEOPLE doing BAD THINGS. The reality is more subtle. I would regard this motion as a delaying tactic, but if you read the syllabus opinion (I haven't had time to read the full thing) there's nothing really revolutionary in there. Nobody's abusing the process; nobody's trashing the justice system. This is criminal procedure, albeit conducted at a level we've not seen before. It's a little early to tell, but assuming that the feds have something solid on Trump, they should be able to make a case. I was also amused to see so many commenters who want to protest that Trump should be locked up, presumably without due process. It'll be okay; the Constitution has survived worse than this. Just ask the Native Americans, or the Japanese, or a Black person.
posted by BReed at 9:17 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
posted by BReed at 9:17 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
I want to say Hitler cause of all the nazis populating the fascist party, but didnt want to violate Godwin
Mike Godwin himself came out of hiding almost 7 years ago to let us know that it was perfectly OK to compare modern neofascists to Nazis.
posted by Strange Interlude at 9:18 AM on July 1 [28 favorites]
Mike Godwin himself came out of hiding almost 7 years ago to let us know that it was perfectly OK to compare modern neofascists to Nazis.
posted by Strange Interlude at 9:18 AM on July 1 [28 favorites]
I feel so fucking betrayed.
Trump lost. We voted him out of office in 2020. He then staged a fucking coup and our institutions (barely) held firm and he ended up skipping town on Inauguration Day like the fucking loser he is. And then it turns out he stole a bunch of nuclear secrets on the way out the door.
How in the hell are we at the point where not only have all of his transgressions been wiped clean, but he's just one election away from returning the power?
Why anything?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:20 AM on July 1 [52 favorites]
Trump lost. We voted him out of office in 2020. He then staged a fucking coup and our institutions (barely) held firm and he ended up skipping town on Inauguration Day like the fucking loser he is. And then it turns out he stole a bunch of nuclear secrets on the way out the door.
How in the hell are we at the point where not only have all of his transgressions been wiped clean, but he's just one election away from returning the power?
Why anything?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:20 AM on July 1 [52 favorites]
Trump has called Liz Cheney guilty of treason, and suggested there be military tribunals. Given that he's commander in chief, wouldn't calling a tribunal together be an official act? Even if a tribunal found no crime, isn't this a license to terrorize?
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:21 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:21 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
Why anything?
A party trying to convince you that there is no meaning, and no truth beyond raw power is a hallmark of fascism. Don't buy it.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:23 AM on July 1 [26 favorites]
A party trying to convince you that there is no meaning, and no truth beyond raw power is a hallmark of fascism. Don't buy it.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:23 AM on July 1 [26 favorites]
Jackson: "To fully appreciate the oddity of making the criminal immunity determination turn on the character of the President's responsibilities, consider what the majority says is one of the President's 'conclusive and preclusive' prerogatives: 'the President's power to remove...those who wield executive power on his behalf.' ... While the President may have the authority to decide to remove the Attorney General, for example, the question here is whether the President has the option to remove the Attorney General by, say, poisoning him to death."
posted by mittens at 9:24 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
posted by mittens at 9:24 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
A party trying to convince you that there is no meaning, and no truth beyond raw power is a hallmark of fascism. Don't buy it.
Then how about the other party fucking do something for a change?
"I know the institutions won't save us, but what if today was the day they decided to try and save us?"
This is a perfect summation of how I'm feeling right now. Thank you.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:25 AM on July 1 [14 favorites]
Then how about the other party fucking do something for a change?
"I know the institutions won't save us, but what if today was the day they decided to try and save us?"
This is a perfect summation of how I'm feeling right now. Thank you.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:25 AM on July 1 [14 favorites]
A party trying to convince you that there is no meaning, and no truth beyond raw power is a hallmark of fascism. Don't buy it.
Then how about the other party fucking do something for a change?
"I know the institutions won't save us, but what if today was the day they decided to try and save us?"
This is a perfect summation of how I'm feeling right now. Thank you.
Can't wait to see nothing from Democrats but more exhortations to vote after this, a case about being immune from penalty after attempts to invalidate the results of voting.
posted by Slackermagee at 9:27 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Then how about the other party fucking do something for a change?
"I know the institutions won't save us, but what if today was the day they decided to try and save us?"
This is a perfect summation of how I'm feeling right now. Thank you.
Can't wait to see nothing from Democrats but more exhortations to vote after this, a case about being immune from penalty after attempts to invalidate the results of voting.
posted by Slackermagee at 9:27 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Then how about the other party fucking do something for a change?
Last comment: This is a knock-on effect of living in a country with no left. The comfortable, wealthy, centrist Dem leadership will embrace fascism before sacrificing their own privilege.
It doesn't follow from this that the rest of us should embrace nihilism.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:27 AM on July 1 [42 favorites]
Last comment: This is a knock-on effect of living in a country with no left. The comfortable, wealthy, centrist Dem leadership will embrace fascism before sacrificing their own privilege.
It doesn't follow from this that the rest of us should embrace nihilism.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:27 AM on July 1 [42 favorites]
We try to understand what his retribution might look like by speaking with people who have the most to lose in a second Trump administration: people who believe Trump will be coming for them.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:31 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:31 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
ryanshepard show its true face by beating and murdering its citizens, particularly en masse, can definitely (obv., not always) be a destabilizing force for dictatorships.
I think it's safe to assume that this is not one such case. Around 50% of the US population would cheer if police simply executed protesters on the spot.
Slackermagee Naah, they'll ask us to give them money in addition to telling us to vote harder.
I am utterly disperited and despairing. I have no chance of fleeing the country, I'm old and have no skill in such demand that any country I'd want to move to will take me anyway.
I don't know what to do.
posted by sotonohito at 9:32 AM on July 1 [18 favorites]
I think it's safe to assume that this is not one such case. Around 50% of the US population would cheer if police simply executed protesters on the spot.
Slackermagee Naah, they'll ask us to give them money in addition to telling us to vote harder.
I am utterly disperited and despairing. I have no chance of fleeing the country, I'm old and have no skill in such demand that any country I'd want to move to will take me anyway.
I don't know what to do.
posted by sotonohito at 9:32 AM on July 1 [18 favorites]
After the Chevron reversal the other day, and per TPM’s morning newsletter, the essence of the Roberts Court in this era has been consolidating the power of judges to decide things, to make them arbiters of facts. On the face, this seems to align with that. What’s an official act? Only a judge can decide.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:35 AM on July 1 [8 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 9:35 AM on July 1 [8 favorites]
>Why anything?
20% of this country wants a revolution
20% will bandwagon with them for the LULZ
20% will dither in the crossfire
20% will make themselves small in the crisis
20% will actively oppose
You want a better democracy, you're going to need better voters.
posted by torokunai at 9:44 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
20% of this country wants a revolution
20% will bandwagon with them for the LULZ
20% will dither in the crossfire
20% will make themselves small in the crisis
20% will actively oppose
You want a better democracy, you're going to need better voters.
posted by torokunai at 9:44 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
If Trump wins on top of all this, I’m old enough that I could be convinced to get out in the streets and just burn this whole motherfucker down. And I’m a well-off white dude. At the very least let’s have an all-inclusive work stoppage across every industry and agree to buy nothing but groceries and medical supplies for say 30 days. We’ll see how the system likes that.
You don’t know me IRL, but I am typically Mr. Cautious, so … yeah. I mean as a young person trying my hand in the music scene, my nickname was “The Accountant”. I’m that exciting.
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:47 AM on July 1 [18 favorites]
You don’t know me IRL, but I am typically Mr. Cautious, so … yeah. I mean as a young person trying my hand in the music scene, my nickname was “The Accountant”. I’m that exciting.
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:47 AM on July 1 [18 favorites]
Surely thi... oh, wait ...
posted by essexjan at 9:54 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
posted by essexjan at 9:54 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
the Outback 6 (No rules, just Right)
Holy fuck this is so good. I’m stealing it.
posted by azpenguin at 9:56 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
Holy fuck this is so good. I’m stealing it.
posted by azpenguin at 9:56 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
assuming that the feds have something solid on Trump, they should be able to make a case
How'd they get that something solid? Did they inquire about official acts, like e.g. the President calling the secretary of State of Georgia about the election? When building their case, did they consider the President's motives in acting the way that he did? Then they don't have something solid anymore.
If the President took a bribe to issue a pardon or appoint an ambassador, the prosecution would not be able to tell the jury what act he took the bribe to perform. If the President designates someone a terrorist and has them killed, prosecutors would be unable to describe to a jury why he may have done that, or even what specifically he did. It's not that just that he is immune to prosecution for his actions; his actions are immune to investigation.
posted by penduluum at 9:57 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
How'd they get that something solid? Did they inquire about official acts, like e.g. the President calling the secretary of State of Georgia about the election? When building their case, did they consider the President's motives in acting the way that he did? Then they don't have something solid anymore.
If the President took a bribe to issue a pardon or appoint an ambassador, the prosecution would not be able to tell the jury what act he took the bribe to perform. If the President designates someone a terrorist and has them killed, prosecutors would be unable to describe to a jury why he may have done that, or even what specifically he did. It's not that just that he is immune to prosecution for his actions; his actions are immune to investigation.
posted by penduluum at 9:57 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
This is a knock-on effect of living in a country with no left. The comfortable, wealthy, centrist Dem leadership will embrace fascism before sacrificing their own privilege.
Quoted for truth.
Speaking of the Left, AOC has announced on Twitter that she plans to file articles of impeachment once Congress returns to session. She doesn't specify against who, but I'd assume at least Thomas.
posted by coffeecat at 9:58 AM on July 1 [32 favorites]
Quoted for truth.
Speaking of the Left, AOC has announced on Twitter that she plans to file articles of impeachment once Congress returns to session. She doesn't specify against who, but I'd assume at least Thomas.
posted by coffeecat at 9:58 AM on July 1 [32 favorites]
"After the Chevron reversal the other day, and per TPM’s morning newsletter, the essence of the Roberts Court in this era has been consolidating the power of judges to decide things, to make them arbiters of facts. On the face, this seems to align with that. What’s an official act? Only a judge can decide".
Yea.... they quickly are going to lost that authority under Trump2, absolutely guaranteed.
posted by WatTylerJr at 10:00 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
Yea.... they quickly are going to lost that authority under Trump2, absolutely guaranteed.
posted by WatTylerJr at 10:00 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
I bet Manchin and Sinema weren't the only fifth columnists in that party. That's why they continue to prop up Biden.
A younger, more driven leader would be able to take this new ruling to expel the six judges who ruled in favour of a lawless president, in clear violation of the Constitution.
A feeble old man like Joe cannot conceive of making such an effort.
posted by CynicalKnight at 10:01 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
A younger, more driven leader would be able to take this new ruling to expel the six judges who ruled in favour of a lawless president, in clear violation of the Constitution.
A feeble old man like Joe cannot conceive of making such an effort.
posted by CynicalKnight at 10:01 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.
When a Supreme Court justice says "I dissent" instead of "I respectfully dissent," that's about the closest you can say to "Fuck that!" in an official SCOTUS opinion. RBG did that in Bush v. Gore, but I can't think of any other time.
posted by jonp72 at 10:02 AM on July 1 [14 favorites]
When a Supreme Court justice says "I dissent" instead of "I respectfully dissent," that's about the closest you can say to "Fuck that!" in an official SCOTUS opinion. RBG did that in Bush v. Gore, but I can't think of any other time.
posted by jonp72 at 10:02 AM on July 1 [14 favorites]
A feeble old man like Joe cannot conceive of making such an effort.
I highly object to calling Joe Biden feeble because he had a bad debate performance because of a cold and a stutter.
Yes, the optics are bad. Yes, you probably didn't get the candidates you wanted in 2016 or 2020.
But calling Joe Biden "feeble" is just downright catastrophizing rooted in ageism and ableism.
posted by jonp72 at 10:04 AM on July 1 [30 favorites]
I highly object to calling Joe Biden feeble because he had a bad debate performance because of a cold and a stutter.
Yes, the optics are bad. Yes, you probably didn't get the candidates you wanted in 2016 or 2020.
But calling Joe Biden "feeble" is just downright catastrophizing rooted in ageism and ableism.
posted by jonp72 at 10:04 AM on July 1 [30 favorites]
ageism and ableism
The alternative--that Biden is energetic and has all his faculties, and simply chooses to drive the country off a cliff rather than endangering the precious norms of the establishment that has fed and clothed him for half a century--is somehow even more frightening.
posted by mittens at 10:12 AM on July 1 [17 favorites]
The alternative--that Biden is energetic and has all his faculties, and simply chooses to drive the country off a cliff rather than endangering the precious norms of the establishment that has fed and clothed him for half a century--is somehow even more frightening.
posted by mittens at 10:12 AM on July 1 [17 favorites]
This is the type of situation where I try to feel flat instead of angry. This has always been the inevitable end of the Democratic Party's games. They decided they'd rather get rich and roll the dice on fascism, knowing that eventually you always lose, than do anything to get in the way of wealthy interests. They did this out of depraved indifference to the wellbeing of average people, as has been pointed out my entire adult life. God knows what things will look like this time next year.
posted by Frowner at 10:12 AM on July 1 [31 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 10:12 AM on July 1 [31 favorites]
> more driven leader would be able to take this new ruling to expel the six judges who ruled in
I for one don't want an "active, driven leader" heading the Executive. Congress is Article I of the Constitution, and we get the government we send to DC – send clowns, expect a circus.
The Executive's job is to faithfully execute the will of Congress.
The economic crisis of the 1930s saw ~80% reformist majorities in Congress backing FDR's initiatives... That was nice.
posted by torokunai at 10:13 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
I for one don't want an "active, driven leader" heading the Executive. Congress is Article I of the Constitution, and we get the government we send to DC – send clowns, expect a circus.
The Executive's job is to faithfully execute the will of Congress.
The economic crisis of the 1930s saw ~80% reformist majorities in Congress backing FDR's initiatives... That was nice.
posted by torokunai at 10:13 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
The solution is more AOCs and fewer MTGs in the 435 elect. I fail to see why this is hard to internalize; where this balance goes so goes the nation.
posted by torokunai at 10:17 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
posted by torokunai at 10:17 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
A younger, more driven leader would be able to take this new ruling to expel the six judges who ruled in favour of a lawless president, in clear violation of the Constitution.
So, you want a fascist, -- as long as it's a virile, young fascist who agrees with you?
posted by The Bellman at 10:19 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
So, you want a fascist, -- as long as it's a virile, young fascist who agrees with you?
posted by The Bellman at 10:19 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
The alternative--that Biden is energetic and has all his faculties, and simply chooses to drive the country off a cliff rather than endangering the precious norms of the establishment that has fed and clothed him for half a century--is somehow even more frightening.
As somebody who has to deal with ageism and ableism in daily life, I would prefer this be the analysis.
posted by jonp72 at 10:22 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
As somebody who has to deal with ageism and ableism in daily life, I would prefer this be the analysis.
posted by jonp72 at 10:22 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
The supreme court gave itself the power to decide if things are constitutional or not. (in the early 1800's), and folks just sort of went with it. This is also not the first time they went on an absolute far right tirade for the forces of evil (good reading here, and here) FDR at the behest of labor unions undid a lot of it, but it was a bloody event, one I fear we may need to repeat.
They will take as much power as we give them. The supreme court has no army, has no way to enforce its rulings, and honestly has been ignored by presidents in the past, and can be so again in the future.
The only thing binding us to these obviously bad decisions is us. I suggest you all call your congress person and tell them to do whatever they can do. Perhaps packing the court, perhaps impeaching some of the more obviously corrupt ones, imposing term limits, etc. Make it clear you will hold them responsible for this, even and especially if they are a democrat.
Also there may come a time when you have to get out into the streets and put your body on the line. I am not talking about holding a sign in the park for a few hours and going home, I am talking a general strike, or a labor stoppage, things that the ruling class understands, money. Do your self a favor and make some cookies and take them to your neighbor, and talk to them about this. Mutual aid is going to be very important in the near future. Start building ties with your community, have them over for dinner, etc.
Time is running out, the tick tick tick of climate change is not going to allow us to put this off, we must fix this, and it has to be very very soon.
Good luck everyone.
posted by stilgar at 10:24 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
They will take as much power as we give them. The supreme court has no army, has no way to enforce its rulings, and honestly has been ignored by presidents in the past, and can be so again in the future.
The only thing binding us to these obviously bad decisions is us. I suggest you all call your congress person and tell them to do whatever they can do. Perhaps packing the court, perhaps impeaching some of the more obviously corrupt ones, imposing term limits, etc. Make it clear you will hold them responsible for this, even and especially if they are a democrat.
Also there may come a time when you have to get out into the streets and put your body on the line. I am not talking about holding a sign in the park for a few hours and going home, I am talking a general strike, or a labor stoppage, things that the ruling class understands, money. Do your self a favor and make some cookies and take them to your neighbor, and talk to them about this. Mutual aid is going to be very important in the near future. Start building ties with your community, have them over for dinner, etc.
Time is running out, the tick tick tick of climate change is not going to allow us to put this off, we must fix this, and it has to be very very soon.
Good luck everyone.
posted by stilgar at 10:24 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
Also there may come a time when you have to get out into the streets and put your body on the line. I am not talking about holding a sign in the park for a few hours and going home, I am talking a general strike, or a labor stoppage, things that the ruling class understands, money.
If Trump plans to use the Insurrection Act to suppress nonviolent protests, as he said he wants to do, resistance might have to take the form of an "army of shadows" like the French Resistance.
posted by jonp72 at 10:30 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
If Trump plans to use the Insurrection Act to suppress nonviolent protests, as he said he wants to do, resistance might have to take the form of an "army of shadows" like the French Resistance.
posted by jonp72 at 10:30 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
jonp72 "ageism"
It is utterly revolting how people are weaponizing that term to try and shut up anyone who admits the truth about Biden.
We're facing the loss of the entire nation to Christofascists because Buden is feeble and senile but it's us admitting that who are the problem? No. The problem was that we let blather about "ageism" shut us up 4 years ago.
I will proudly wear the label of ageist if that's what it takes to be honest and say Biden is a feeble, senile, disaster and his ego is going to cost us the country.
posted by sotonohito at 10:33 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]
It is utterly revolting how people are weaponizing that term to try and shut up anyone who admits the truth about Biden.
We're facing the loss of the entire nation to Christofascists because Buden is feeble and senile but it's us admitting that who are the problem? No. The problem was that we let blather about "ageism" shut us up 4 years ago.
I will proudly wear the label of ageist if that's what it takes to be honest and say Biden is a feeble, senile, disaster and his ego is going to cost us the country.
posted by sotonohito at 10:33 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]
hey guys, it's time for some game theory!
i doubt biden will use any of the new powers just bestowed on the presidency by the supreme court to do anything; his entire brand is 'let's all just go back to how things used to be, how does that sound, huh?' but at some point, even if it's not this go-round, someone will be elected president who will take full advantage of the official acts immunity thing. like this ruling isn't trump-specific, it's forever, or at least until some notional future supreme court reconsiders, which given the 6-3 majority and the slow turnover is not likely to be any time soon.
the point is that depending on future presidents not to do a dictatorship when all that is required is for a single president to decide they are now a dictator is not a viable strategy. so long as elections keep happening and the united states is still around, it is a virtual certainty that someone is going heed that call and turn the u.s. into a dictatorship.
if biden is really interested in preserving the republic, his immediate response should be to seize power in exactly the way the supreme court has licensed him to and do whatever is necessary to put a stop to presidential immunity. this is pretty much an existential issue.
posted by logicpunk at 10:33 AM on July 1 [28 favorites]
i doubt biden will use any of the new powers just bestowed on the presidency by the supreme court to do anything; his entire brand is 'let's all just go back to how things used to be, how does that sound, huh?' but at some point, even if it's not this go-round, someone will be elected president who will take full advantage of the official acts immunity thing. like this ruling isn't trump-specific, it's forever, or at least until some notional future supreme court reconsiders, which given the 6-3 majority and the slow turnover is not likely to be any time soon.
the point is that depending on future presidents not to do a dictatorship when all that is required is for a single president to decide they are now a dictator is not a viable strategy. so long as elections keep happening and the united states is still around, it is a virtual certainty that someone is going heed that call and turn the u.s. into a dictatorship.
if biden is really interested in preserving the republic, his immediate response should be to seize power in exactly the way the supreme court has licensed him to and do whatever is necessary to put a stop to presidential immunity. this is pretty much an existential issue.
posted by logicpunk at 10:33 AM on July 1 [28 favorites]
But calling Joe Biden "feeble" is just downright catastrophizing rooted in ageism and ableism.
Normally totally agree with these sentiments, but the vast majority of the American public has decided this is the case, and just as importantly (likely more importantly) the national media-policito complex has decided this is the case, so while this point is true, it just doesn't matters. The NYT will not make this the only issue of import in this election. When is the last time they did a story about anything else on the Administration's accomplishments.
The election is WAY too important to make a stand against ageism. There are plenty of vital reasons to decide to roll with Biden, but IMO he's going to lose because of this. It's hard baked in, and no amount of rallies or commercials or tiktoks will change that.
Either our side accepts the risks with him, or (my take); remove the sclerotic and basically useless national democratic leadership and try to actually hinder or stop Trumpism.
Biden had his turn, he did a lot of good things (progressive legislation) and some really bad ones (Gaza) but his worst was choosing not to be the best one term President in US History instead of his Ginsberg-Feinstein-esque unwillingness to give up his grip on power. Well, that and the single worst cabinet choice in US History, Merrick Garland. How do you lost a nuclear sectors case against Trump and his atrocious lawyers?
posted by WatTylerJr at 10:38 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
Normally totally agree with these sentiments, but the vast majority of the American public has decided this is the case, and just as importantly (likely more importantly) the national media-policito complex has decided this is the case, so while this point is true, it just doesn't matters. The NYT will not make this the only issue of import in this election. When is the last time they did a story about anything else on the Administration's accomplishments.
The election is WAY too important to make a stand against ageism. There are plenty of vital reasons to decide to roll with Biden, but IMO he's going to lose because of this. It's hard baked in, and no amount of rallies or commercials or tiktoks will change that.
Either our side accepts the risks with him, or (my take); remove the sclerotic and basically useless national democratic leadership and try to actually hinder or stop Trumpism.
Biden had his turn, he did a lot of good things (progressive legislation) and some really bad ones (Gaza) but his worst was choosing not to be the best one term President in US History instead of his Ginsberg-Feinstein-esque unwillingness to give up his grip on power. Well, that and the single worst cabinet choice in US History, Merrick Garland. How do you lost a nuclear sectors case against Trump and his atrocious lawyers?
posted by WatTylerJr at 10:38 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
Not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell, this completely invalidates the classified documents..... Hoarding case, and seems clearly designed to protect the Jan 6 insurrection and probably all the fraud and insider trading and whatever Russian support he got.
posted by Jacen at 10:40 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
posted by Jacen at 10:40 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
All the talk of “bold and unhesitating action” makes me wonder how much they really want a Strong Man.
posted by mazola at 10:41 AM on July 1
posted by mazola at 10:41 AM on July 1
what really concerns me is "immunized conduct can’t be used as evidence in a trial for conduct for which a former president is not otherwise immune."
It’s bad enough it concerns Amy Coney Barrett enough to dissent on that point. This opinion is trash.
posted by corb at 10:41 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]
It’s bad enough it concerns Amy Coney Barrett enough to dissent on that point. This opinion is trash.
posted by corb at 10:41 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]
Stinger's point above was the best comment I've ever seen on this subject, esp. on the Court. They are the primary retrograde power in US history and they have NO basis for that. I wish I had the words, thanks for saying it, cause it's been driving me crazy that isn't a widespread.
Well, that and the climate change unstoppable freight train gathering speed everyday. We dont even want to try and slow it down with the mass switch to renewables (think of the jobs at least).
posted by WatTylerJr at 10:42 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
Well, that and the climate change unstoppable freight train gathering speed everyday. We dont even want to try and slow it down with the mass switch to renewables (think of the jobs at least).
posted by WatTylerJr at 10:42 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
autocorrect since it didn't catch the Dune reference
posted by torokunai at 10:49 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
posted by torokunai at 10:49 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
All the talk of “bold and unhesitating action” makes me wonder how much they really want a Strong Man.
I want a Strong Woman or Strong Enby, actually.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:57 AM on July 1 [2 favorites]
I want a Strong Woman or Strong Enby, actually.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:57 AM on July 1 [2 favorites]
If you think Biden can use this presidential immunity, you are trapped in the centrist rules-fetish. This isnt a new rule, its a continuation of republicans m.o. - rules are for suckers, power is all that matters. You are trying to play chess with a party holding guns, of course they are going to move the rook diagonally and no, you can't.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 10:57 AM on July 1 [31 favorites]
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 10:57 AM on July 1 [31 favorites]
Considering the possibilities I'm looking at running away from this country really fast depending on the election. Like, day-after-the-election fast.
He, and the Project 2025 group, want to very literally define my existence as pornographic and imprison me for existing, and I have no doubts that torture for funsies by the New Brownshits will be part of that imprisonment.
One stroke of a pen after the use of a printer and executive orders ban abortion, birth control, and a lot of other things.
I hear Finland is nice.
posted by mephron at 10:57 AM on July 1 [7 favorites]
He, and the Project 2025 group, want to very literally define my existence as pornographic and imprison me for existing, and I have no doubts that torture for funsies by the New Brownshits will be part of that imprisonment.
One stroke of a pen after the use of a printer and executive orders ban abortion, birth control, and a lot of other things.
I hear Finland is nice.
posted by mephron at 10:57 AM on July 1 [7 favorites]
Either our side accepts the risks with him, or (my take); remove the sclerotic and basically useless national democratic leadership
More wishful thinking, and wishful thinking does not help. Who's going to remove the Dem leadership? How are they to be removed? By what process does this happen? Who replaces them? Who chooses who replaces them? And on what criteria?
I get that you're frustrated, but this smacks of "if we run a Progressive! FIREbrand! the people will rally to us!!1!" and no they fucking won't.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 10:57 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
More wishful thinking, and wishful thinking does not help. Who's going to remove the Dem leadership? How are they to be removed? By what process does this happen? Who replaces them? Who chooses who replaces them? And on what criteria?
I get that you're frustrated, but this smacks of "if we run a Progressive! FIREbrand! the people will rally to us!!1!" and no they fucking won't.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 10:57 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
And before you comment: no, I don't have any faith in the establishment to not make things worse.
posted by mephron at 10:58 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
posted by mephron at 10:58 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
now there's like 0 chance of Trump's federal prosecutions wrapping up before November
Why would they have to wrap up before November? Aren't courts open in November and December?
posted by kirkaracha at 11:00 AM on July 1
Why would they have to wrap up before November? Aren't courts open in November and December?
posted by kirkaracha at 11:00 AM on July 1
jonp72 "ageism"
It is utterly revolting how people are weaponizing that term to try and shut up anyone who admits the truth about Biden.
We're facing the loss of the entire nation to Christofascists because Buden is feeble and senile but it's us admitting that who are the problem? No. The problem was that we let blather about "ageism" shut us up 4 years ago.
I will proudly wear the label of ageist if that's what it takes to be honest and say Biden is a feeble, senile, disaster and his ego is going to cost us the country.
If you truly believed that Joe Biden was feeble and senile, there's a mechanism for dealing with that & that means having Joe Biden resign & making Kamala Harris president. (You can't say that Biden is too feeble and senile to defeat Trump & then say he's spry enough to govern the country.) But I don't see that coming from the folks who posted "Kamala is a cop" on Twitter in 2020.
posted by jonp72 at 11:02 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]
It is utterly revolting how people are weaponizing that term to try and shut up anyone who admits the truth about Biden.
We're facing the loss of the entire nation to Christofascists because Buden is feeble and senile but it's us admitting that who are the problem? No. The problem was that we let blather about "ageism" shut us up 4 years ago.
I will proudly wear the label of ageist if that's what it takes to be honest and say Biden is a feeble, senile, disaster and his ego is going to cost us the country.
If you truly believed that Joe Biden was feeble and senile, there's a mechanism for dealing with that & that means having Joe Biden resign & making Kamala Harris president. (You can't say that Biden is too feeble and senile to defeat Trump & then say he's spry enough to govern the country.) But I don't see that coming from the folks who posted "Kamala is a cop" on Twitter in 2020.
posted by jonp72 at 11:02 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]
So, you want a fascist, -- as long as it's a virile, young fascist who agrees with you?
The hard right should not be celebrating this ruling; they should be soiling themselves with naked fear.
The door has been kicked open for unfettered executive power -- either directly (as an official act, I declare X an enemy of the state and a target for Seal Team 6, go get 'em, boys) or indirectly (as President, anything I order for any reason can get tied up in the courts for so long, muddling up the question of whether it's covered by official act immunity, that there are no timely and effective recourses against anything I choose to do). This has happened at a time when they do not control said executive office.
We tell jokes about "Biden should just send out the military to round up all his opponents now," but they're not so funny on the same day when Trump's quite literally declared a political enemy preemptively guilty of a capital crime and that the military, of whom he would be Commander-in-Chief, should have the power to decide whether she lives or dies. That power effectively rests in the hands of Joe Biden right now. The right does not fear that at all because they know that he will never use it.
If we lived in a fantasyland in which the parties could take turns wielding that power, knowing that both sides were principled enough not to abuse it beyond reason, that would be one thing. Obviously, we do not. So, right now, Joe is holding a lit bomb and running against someone who's shouting at the top of his lungs that, if he wins in November and gains custody of said bomb, he will use that bomb to blow up Joe and everything and everyone he loves. The stakes have risen. He can either:
a) pray that the Dems win every Presidential election from now until the Republican base regains some level of self-analysis and dignity and shame, by margins that cannot be stolen or overruled by electoral skullduggery, or:
b) if biden is really interested in preserving the republic, his immediate response should be to seize power in exactly the way the supreme court has licensed him to and do whatever is necessary to put a stop to presidential immunity. this is pretty much an existential issue.
A President is not a Green Lantern, we have famously repeated. But SCOTUS just slipped a green ring onto Biden's hand and whispered "in brightest day, in darkest night, you'll never face trial, so do as you might" into his ear. There aren't a lot of good answers to what he COULD do with it -- but he has four months to decide on doing something or anything.
Good luck, folks.
posted by delfin at 11:03 AM on July 1 [23 favorites]
The hard right should not be celebrating this ruling; they should be soiling themselves with naked fear.
The door has been kicked open for unfettered executive power -- either directly (as an official act, I declare X an enemy of the state and a target for Seal Team 6, go get 'em, boys) or indirectly (as President, anything I order for any reason can get tied up in the courts for so long, muddling up the question of whether it's covered by official act immunity, that there are no timely and effective recourses against anything I choose to do). This has happened at a time when they do not control said executive office.
We tell jokes about "Biden should just send out the military to round up all his opponents now," but they're not so funny on the same day when Trump's quite literally declared a political enemy preemptively guilty of a capital crime and that the military, of whom he would be Commander-in-Chief, should have the power to decide whether she lives or dies. That power effectively rests in the hands of Joe Biden right now. The right does not fear that at all because they know that he will never use it.
If we lived in a fantasyland in which the parties could take turns wielding that power, knowing that both sides were principled enough not to abuse it beyond reason, that would be one thing. Obviously, we do not. So, right now, Joe is holding a lit bomb and running against someone who's shouting at the top of his lungs that, if he wins in November and gains custody of said bomb, he will use that bomb to blow up Joe and everything and everyone he loves. The stakes have risen. He can either:
a) pray that the Dems win every Presidential election from now until the Republican base regains some level of self-analysis and dignity and shame, by margins that cannot be stolen or overruled by electoral skullduggery, or:
b) if biden is really interested in preserving the republic, his immediate response should be to seize power in exactly the way the supreme court has licensed him to and do whatever is necessary to put a stop to presidential immunity. this is pretty much an existential issue.
A President is not a Green Lantern, we have famously repeated. But SCOTUS just slipped a green ring onto Biden's hand and whispered "in brightest day, in darkest night, you'll never face trial, so do as you might" into his ear. There aren't a lot of good answers to what he COULD do with it -- but he has four months to decide on doing something or anything.
Good luck, folks.
posted by delfin at 11:03 AM on July 1 [23 favorites]
Point of clarification from the moderators: Is ageism and ableism OK if you're left of the Democratic Party?
posted by jonp72 at 11:04 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
posted by jonp72 at 11:04 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
"immunized conduct can’t be used as evidence in a trial for conduct for which a former president is not otherwise immune."
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.posted by soundguy99 at 11:06 AM on July 1 [14 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. Let's avoid doom and gloom comments and please let's not mention suicide lightly. Also, for clarification: ageism goes directly against our content policy, so please feel free to flag any comments you think should be reviewed by the mods. If you see anything you want to discuss directly with us, please contact us.
posted by loup (staff) at 11:12 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
posted by loup (staff) at 11:12 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
It is utterly revolting how people are weaponizing that term to try and shut up anyone who admits the truth about Biden.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
posted by y2karl at 11:12 AM on July 1 [8 favorites]
...The sheer malicious hatred the elderly exhibit towards younger people is staggering.
They want to kill us via climate change.
They want to make us poor.
They want to keep us from retiring.
They want to let us die from lack of healthcare.
Yet, because "ageism" is a weaponized term that exists only to attempt to shame critics into silence, no one describes any of the vicious attacks on the young by the old as ageism.
The real thing, actual genuine discrimination in the workplace based on age, is important and bad. But we can't talk about that because the word that used to be useful for discussing that issue has been turned into a political cudgel wielded against anyone under the age of 60.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
posted by y2karl at 11:12 AM on July 1 [8 favorites]
> ableism OK
this really calls back to my freshman dorm BS sessions in '85-'86 when we talked about whether Reagan's diminishing mental acuity was a liability or not. Back then I figured since he was a lame duck already there wasn't a whole lot to object to even if he was a disinterested observer through 1988.
Then Iran-Contra reared its ugly head and it became clear that a fish does kinda rot from the top in government.
In a vacuum, focusing on who is the more mentally competent, Trump or Biden, would be perfectly understandable.
We are not living in a vacuum though.
posted by torokunai at 11:13 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
this really calls back to my freshman dorm BS sessions in '85-'86 when we talked about whether Reagan's diminishing mental acuity was a liability or not. Back then I figured since he was a lame duck already there wasn't a whole lot to object to even if he was a disinterested observer through 1988.
Then Iran-Contra reared its ugly head and it became clear that a fish does kinda rot from the top in government.
In a vacuum, focusing on who is the more mentally competent, Trump or Biden, would be perfectly understandable.
We are not living in a vacuum though.
posted by torokunai at 11:13 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
The hard right should not be celebrating this ruling; they should be soiling themselves with naked fear.
One of the big salient differences between the two parties is that one of them is run by people willing, eager, and salivating to take the kind of action you're talking about and the other is run by people horrified by the idea. Part of the point of this ruling is that the majority understand that this decision will never, ever be used for any reason except to benefit a Republican.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:14 AM on July 1 [27 favorites]
One of the big salient differences between the two parties is that one of them is run by people willing, eager, and salivating to take the kind of action you're talking about and the other is run by people horrified by the idea. Part of the point of this ruling is that the majority understand that this decision will never, ever be used for any reason except to benefit a Republican.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:14 AM on July 1 [27 favorites]
Can the Biden stuff move over to that other post that is open and actually about Biden?
Anyway, the last few days I've thinking about those openly corrupt judges Thomas and Alito, because I wonder if they are gambling men? It looks like they are playing some game with high stakes, almost daring Congress to impeach them. And all of the conservative judges are making a mockery of the court and the rule of law with such speed that it feels like they have a deadline.
posted by mumimor at 11:15 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
Anyway, the last few days I've thinking about those openly corrupt judges Thomas and Alito, because I wonder if they are gambling men? It looks like they are playing some game with high stakes, almost daring Congress to impeach them. And all of the conservative judges are making a mockery of the court and the rule of law with such speed that it feels like they have a deadline.
posted by mumimor at 11:15 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
Thomas and Alito are receiving their bribes AFTER they make the favorable rulings so they count as "tips for good service". They even just ruled that was okay a week or so ago.
posted by charred husk at 11:16 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]
posted by charred husk at 11:16 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]
So, right now, Joe is holding a lit bomb and running against someone who's shouting at the top of his lungs that, if he wins in November and gains custody of said bomb, he will use that bomb to blow up Joe and everything and everyone he loves. The stakes have risen. He can either:
This is what's so scary about the current moment. Obviously the Outback 6 are aware of this, right? They must obviously know the ramifications of their ruling, and yet they did it anyway? Are they confident that Biden won't do anything with that power? Are they daring Biden to exercise this newfound power knowing that whatever he does will be considered an overreach that will tank the election for him?
Anyway, the last few days I've thinking about those openly corrupt judges Thomas and Alito, because I wonder if they are gambling men? It looks like they are playing some game with high stakes, almost daring Congress to impeach them. And all of the conservative judges are making a mockery of the court and the rule of law with such speed that it feels like they have a deadline.
Yeah, I've been wondering that too. Sometimes when I'm feeling optimistic I'm imaging that they're playing defense or trying to outrun some change in the electorate which isn't yet apparent to the rest of us (even though I know that demographics won't save us). Other times I feel like they're just running out the clock waiting for Trump to get into office.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:25 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
This is what's so scary about the current moment. Obviously the Outback 6 are aware of this, right? They must obviously know the ramifications of their ruling, and yet they did it anyway? Are they confident that Biden won't do anything with that power? Are they daring Biden to exercise this newfound power knowing that whatever he does will be considered an overreach that will tank the election for him?
Anyway, the last few days I've thinking about those openly corrupt judges Thomas and Alito, because I wonder if they are gambling men? It looks like they are playing some game with high stakes, almost daring Congress to impeach them. And all of the conservative judges are making a mockery of the court and the rule of law with such speed that it feels like they have a deadline.
Yeah, I've been wondering that too. Sometimes when I'm feeling optimistic I'm imaging that they're playing defense or trying to outrun some change in the electorate which isn't yet apparent to the rest of us (even though I know that demographics won't save us). Other times I feel like they're just running out the clock waiting for Trump to get into office.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:25 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have broad immunity, dimming chance of a pre-election Trump trial [AP]
Good initial synthesis from AP.
posted by mazola at 11:31 AM on July 1
Good initial synthesis from AP.
posted by mazola at 11:31 AM on July 1
Appointing Supreme Court Justices is an official act of the President. Biden should announce that "presidential immunity" is the product of a corrupt Supreme Court, is a massive threat to national security, and must be reversed or eliminated; in consultation with his DOJ, White House counsel, and most especially his military leaders, he is examining all options available to him to "vacate" the seats of at least Alito and Thomas, if not Roberts as well for allowing their open abuse of office. Then withdraw all of their security details.
Biden doesn't have to be the guy who would abuse the unlimited power that the Supreme Court just handed to the presidency, he just needs to make SCOTUS ponder their own vulnerability to someone who would.
posted by SpaceBass at 11:32 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
Biden doesn't have to be the guy who would abuse the unlimited power that the Supreme Court just handed to the presidency, he just needs to make SCOTUS ponder their own vulnerability to someone who would.
posted by SpaceBass at 11:32 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
This is what's so scary about the current moment. Obviously the Outback 6 are aware of this, right? They must obviously know the ramifications of their ruling, and yet they did it anyway? Are they confident that Biden won't do anything with that power? Are they daring Biden to exercise this newfound power knowing that whatever he does will be considered an overreach that will tank the election for him?
I'd bet literally anyone that given some power, the democrats won't do shit with it!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:32 AM on July 1 [8 favorites]
I'd bet literally anyone that given some power, the democrats won't do shit with it!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:32 AM on July 1 [8 favorites]
FWIW, the SCOTUSblog analysis is up, and it's the most clearly written take on the ruling that I've seen yet.
It doesn't hypothesize on the potential impacts, so I imagine a lot of us will be frustrated with it, but it lays out the facts and makes it easy to understand.
posted by martin q blank at 11:34 AM on July 1 [7 favorites]
It doesn't hypothesize on the potential impacts, so I imagine a lot of us will be frustrated with it, but it lays out the facts and makes it easy to understand.
posted by martin q blank at 11:34 AM on July 1 [7 favorites]
This decision just gave presidents immunity from criminal prosecution. Not impeachment and conviction. If Biden were to do any of the power-grabby things you're imagining, the Democrats would join with the Republicans to impeach and convict him. There's no passing this "power" around like it's a mystical sword; only one party to the swordfight even believes the sword exists. They'll deny it's real even as it beheads them.
posted by penduluum at 11:34 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
posted by penduluum at 11:34 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
All the stuff about people wanting a "leftist fascist" (oxymoron, but ok) is missing the point:
The Supreme Court didn't ACTUALLY grant the US President unchecked monarchal power. It granted itself the right to decide what acts a President takes can be considered criminal and which cannot.
If Biden did try to use the power of immunity to do something drastic it wouldn't work, they'd say it was outside his official duties no matter what it was and toss him in prison.
But they will also rule that anything Trump does is 100% in his official capicity and cannot be considered criminal.
For all that I complain about the Democrats being spineless cowards, this isn't a power they can take up and use. They wouldn't even if they could, but the point is that they can't. This isn't a generic Green Lantern ring, it's a Republican specific Green Lantern ring.
It's like the Chevron ruling. They didn't, actually, say that the EPA can't make regulations. They said that the MAGA 6 get to decide which regulations are legit.
If the EPA goes after Exxon for pollution, the MAGA 6 will rule that the EPA doesn't have that power.
If Trump's EPA shuts down all wind farms nationwide because he hates wind the MAGA 6 will rule that is a power the EPA has.
It's not really about executive power, though it pretends to be. It's about the MAGA Court claiming power for itself. I'm doubtful they can hold their position as a hexumvirate though, once a Republican President starts Green Lanterning it up they won't be able to restrain him.
posted by sotonohito at 11:38 AM on July 1 [34 favorites]
The Supreme Court didn't ACTUALLY grant the US President unchecked monarchal power. It granted itself the right to decide what acts a President takes can be considered criminal and which cannot.
If Biden did try to use the power of immunity to do something drastic it wouldn't work, they'd say it was outside his official duties no matter what it was and toss him in prison.
But they will also rule that anything Trump does is 100% in his official capicity and cannot be considered criminal.
For all that I complain about the Democrats being spineless cowards, this isn't a power they can take up and use. They wouldn't even if they could, but the point is that they can't. This isn't a generic Green Lantern ring, it's a Republican specific Green Lantern ring.
It's like the Chevron ruling. They didn't, actually, say that the EPA can't make regulations. They said that the MAGA 6 get to decide which regulations are legit.
If the EPA goes after Exxon for pollution, the MAGA 6 will rule that the EPA doesn't have that power.
If Trump's EPA shuts down all wind farms nationwide because he hates wind the MAGA 6 will rule that is a power the EPA has.
It's not really about executive power, though it pretends to be. It's about the MAGA Court claiming power for itself. I'm doubtful they can hold their position as a hexumvirate though, once a Republican President starts Green Lanterning it up they won't be able to restrain him.
posted by sotonohito at 11:38 AM on July 1 [34 favorites]
I really hope that there's an assembled team of the very best speechwriters from the past fifty years somewhere in Washington putting together a speech titled "I Am Not A King, I Am A President" for Biden to deliver on July 4th.
Oh who am I kidding. He's probably going to just wish everyone a non-partisan Happy Independence Day.
(Prove us wrong, Joe!)
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:38 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Oh who am I kidding. He's probably going to just wish everyone a non-partisan Happy Independence Day.
(Prove us wrong, Joe!)
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:38 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Did not have Ralph Nader acting like a dipshit on Twitter and getting served tea by Elie Mystal on my bingo card but here we are.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 11:39 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 11:39 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
Oh who am I kidding. He's probably going to just wish everyone a non-partisan Happy Independence Day.
Not just nonpartisan, but bipartisan! Because comity with racists who want him to fail is the most important star in the national firmament where the former senator from MBNA is concerned.
posted by Gadarene at 11:43 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
Not just nonpartisan, but bipartisan! Because comity with racists who want him to fail is the most important star in the national firmament where the former senator from MBNA is concerned.
posted by Gadarene at 11:43 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
This decision just gave presidents immunity from criminal prosecution. Not impeachment and conviction. If Biden were to do any of the power-grabby things you're imagining, the Democrats would join with the Republicans to impeach and convict him.
yeah? who's going to vote to impeach the guy who now has several previously-criminal-but-now-perfectly-fine ways to deal with irksome judges/senators/representatives.
if the president offers a pardon and a ride on marine 1 to anyone who 'takes care' of the chief justice, that's an official act, son, and without a chief justice, there can't be an impeachment of the president. gotta wait 'til the next chief justice comes along.
wait, who gets to appoint the chief justice again?
posted by logicpunk at 11:44 AM on July 1 [2 favorites]
yeah? who's going to vote to impeach the guy who now has several previously-criminal-but-now-perfectly-fine ways to deal with irksome judges/senators/representatives.
if the president offers a pardon and a ride on marine 1 to anyone who 'takes care' of the chief justice, that's an official act, son, and without a chief justice, there can't be an impeachment of the president. gotta wait 'til the next chief justice comes along.
wait, who gets to appoint the chief justice again?
posted by logicpunk at 11:44 AM on July 1 [2 favorites]
One assumes the administration, knowing the opinion would come out today, will have prepared a statement outlining what they plan to do about this?
— Will Rogers
posted by kirkaracha at 11:44 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.
— Will Rogers
posted by kirkaracha at 11:44 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
Either our side accepts the risks with him, or (my take); remove the sclerotic and basically useless national democratic leadership
More wishful thinking, and wishful thinking does not help. Who's going to remove the Dem leadership? How are they to be removed? By what process does this happen? Who replaces them? Who chooses who replaces them? And on what criteria?
I get that you're frustrated, but this smacks of "if we run a Progressive! FIREbrand! the people will rally to us!!1!" and no they fucking won't.
Respectfully, the perception of Biden as feeble is baked into the narrative, and beloved by the national media. Nothing is going to change that. I agree with all your 'how do you do its' - I dont know how, I'm not an expert in the nuances of nomination regulations and 'norms'. And yes, it'd be hard and potentially very risky under any circumstances. But these regs and norms are not immutable laws of nature.
I was very much a Biden is our guy, and we need to roll with him. But after Thursday, I do not think that any longer. He's different than the 77 year old of 2020. He's unable to deal in real time with the firehose of vicious spew from the Golden Toilet. Who cares what I think, but I think he should step aside and let someone else who can fight. Progressive, yes I'd like that, but Amy Klobuchar, or any Centrist Dem who'd actually fight would be fine by me. Liz Freaking Cheney is fine by me, anyone who tries to beat back the coming dictatorship is fine by me.
Stilgar, sorry, autocorrect and I need to periodically step out of this chat cause it's making me despondent beyond belief.
Ableist and Agesim, yes agreed these are terrible terrible things, bit (IMO) do not supersede the need to prevent an American dictatorship. It's obviously ok to say that precedent is wrong, but it's also ok to feel that Joe Biden is not up to the task. I'm sorry if I seemed insensitive.
posted by WatTylerJr at 11:50 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
More wishful thinking, and wishful thinking does not help. Who's going to remove the Dem leadership? How are they to be removed? By what process does this happen? Who replaces them? Who chooses who replaces them? And on what criteria?
I get that you're frustrated, but this smacks of "if we run a Progressive! FIREbrand! the people will rally to us!!1!" and no they fucking won't.
Respectfully, the perception of Biden as feeble is baked into the narrative, and beloved by the national media. Nothing is going to change that. I agree with all your 'how do you do its' - I dont know how, I'm not an expert in the nuances of nomination regulations and 'norms'. And yes, it'd be hard and potentially very risky under any circumstances. But these regs and norms are not immutable laws of nature.
I was very much a Biden is our guy, and we need to roll with him. But after Thursday, I do not think that any longer. He's different than the 77 year old of 2020. He's unable to deal in real time with the firehose of vicious spew from the Golden Toilet. Who cares what I think, but I think he should step aside and let someone else who can fight. Progressive, yes I'd like that, but Amy Klobuchar, or any Centrist Dem who'd actually fight would be fine by me. Liz Freaking Cheney is fine by me, anyone who tries to beat back the coming dictatorship is fine by me.
Stilgar, sorry, autocorrect and I need to periodically step out of this chat cause it's making me despondent beyond belief.
Ableist and Agesim, yes agreed these are terrible terrible things, bit (IMO) do not supersede the need to prevent an American dictatorship. It's obviously ok to say that precedent is wrong, but it's also ok to feel that Joe Biden is not up to the task. I'm sorry if I seemed insensitive.
posted by WatTylerJr at 11:50 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
Quotes from ScotusBlog article:
As an initial matter, Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments.
So a president taking bribes for pardons or vetoes would be legal?
Turning to some of the specific allegations against Trump, the majority ruled that Trump cannot be prosecuted for his alleged efforts to “leverage the Justice Department’s power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trump’s fraudulent slates of electors.”
How are a state's electors any part of the president of the United States? How can this possibly be legal? It's not even logical.
With regard to the allegation that Trump attempted to pressure his former vice president, Mike Pence, in his role as president of the senate, to reject the states’ electoral votes or send them back to state legislatures, the court deemed Trump “presumptively immune” from prosecution on the theory that the president and vice president are acting officially when they discuss their official responsibilities. On the other hand, Roberts observed, the vice president’s role as president of the senate is not an executive branch role. The court therefore left it for the district court to decide whether prosecuting Trump for this conduct would intrude on the power and operation of the executive branch.
What the actual fuck?
posted by kirkaracha at 11:56 AM on July 1 [22 favorites]
As an initial matter, Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments.
So a president taking bribes for pardons or vetoes would be legal?
Turning to some of the specific allegations against Trump, the majority ruled that Trump cannot be prosecuted for his alleged efforts to “leverage the Justice Department’s power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trump’s fraudulent slates of electors.”
How are a state's electors any part of the president of the United States? How can this possibly be legal? It's not even logical.
With regard to the allegation that Trump attempted to pressure his former vice president, Mike Pence, in his role as president of the senate, to reject the states’ electoral votes or send them back to state legislatures, the court deemed Trump “presumptively immune” from prosecution on the theory that the president and vice president are acting officially when they discuss their official responsibilities. On the other hand, Roberts observed, the vice president’s role as president of the senate is not an executive branch role. The court therefore left it for the district court to decide whether prosecuting Trump for this conduct would intrude on the power and operation of the executive branch.
What the actual fuck?
posted by kirkaracha at 11:56 AM on July 1 [22 favorites]
Unless I'm missing something, ageism would be to assume that Biden can't handle the demands of the office or the campaign because of his advanced years, even though there is no evidence that he is slipping. When he very publicly demonstrates that he absolutely cannot consistently do what is required anymore (although he could at a younger age), that's not ageism, that's just reality. Being anti-ageism doesn't mean I have to believe that everyone is as capable at 80 as they were at 35.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:07 PM on July 1 [12 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:07 PM on July 1 [12 favorites]
So, you want a fascist, -- as long as it's a virile, young fascist who agrees with you?
I have been told, so incredibly often, that we have to play with the hand that's been dealt to us.
We've been dealt five of a kind from a stacked deck and now the response is "But we must be honorable"?!
The next guy is ALSO getting five of a kind!
posted by Slackermagee at 12:09 PM on July 1 [8 favorites]
I have been told, so incredibly often, that we have to play with the hand that's been dealt to us.
We've been dealt five of a kind from a stacked deck and now the response is "But we must be honorable"?!
The next guy is ALSO getting five of a kind!
posted by Slackermagee at 12:09 PM on July 1 [8 favorites]
Fuckity fuck. Nothing better to say. Each of the recent Supreme decisions has been worse than the one before.
posted by jokeefe at 12:11 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
posted by jokeefe at 12:11 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
Who cares what I think, but I think he should step aside and let someone else who can fight. Progressive, yes I'd like that, but Amy Klobuchar, or any Centrist Dem who'd actually fight would be fine by me.
The only possible option for Biden's replacement is Harris. For one thing, the Democrats absolutely cannot risk frustrating Black voters by choosing a white person over the current vice-president. But as a much more practical matter, only Harris can inherit Biden's $$$$$$ campaign war chest. Anyone else would be starting from scratch. The Democratic nominee this fall will be Biden or Harris. Nothing else is going to happen.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:13 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
The only possible option for Biden's replacement is Harris. For one thing, the Democrats absolutely cannot risk frustrating Black voters by choosing a white person over the current vice-president. But as a much more practical matter, only Harris can inherit Biden's $$$$$$ campaign war chest. Anyone else would be starting from scratch. The Democratic nominee this fall will be Biden or Harris. Nothing else is going to happen.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:13 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
What the actual fuck?
Yeah. My impression is that a bunch of SCOTUS watchers and Law People were generally anticipating the wider "official acts are immune, non-official acts are not, get back to us when you've figured out which is which" opinion, which would have pushed any real decision past the election. It's all the other crap specifically naming Trump's coup attempts official and kneecapping anyone's ability to even investigate whether an act is official or not that is freaking people out.
posted by soundguy99 at 12:14 PM on July 1 [13 favorites]
Yeah. My impression is that a bunch of SCOTUS watchers and Law People were generally anticipating the wider "official acts are immune, non-official acts are not, get back to us when you've figured out which is which" opinion, which would have pushed any real decision past the election. It's all the other crap specifically naming Trump's coup attempts official and kneecapping anyone's ability to even investigate whether an act is official or not that is freaking people out.
posted by soundguy99 at 12:14 PM on July 1 [13 favorites]
Republicans are serious about establishing a Fascist dictatorship. The people running the NYTimes and other mainstream media had better wake the fuck up. We're running out of time.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:23 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:23 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
Everything's coming up Milhouse Trump, the recent convictions notwithstanding. Having so many judges in his back pocket has proven to be quite valuable.
posted by tommasz at 12:24 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
posted by tommasz at 12:24 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
The crazy thing to remember is that this isn't explicitly the product of Trump's Republican Party.
Thomas -- Bush I
Robert -- Bush II
Alito -- Bush II
Kavanaugh -- Trump's, but with a nod from Justice Kennedy
Gorsuch and ACB -- Trump's, but at very least Gorsuch would've been considered a mainstream Republican nominee.
This was always the party's agenda. Trump is a chaotic and fucked catalyst for what looked for a period to be the failing agenda of mainstream Republican electeds.
posted by kensington314 at 12:28 PM on July 1 [11 favorites]
Thomas -- Bush I
Robert -- Bush II
Alito -- Bush II
Kavanaugh -- Trump's, but with a nod from Justice Kennedy
Gorsuch and ACB -- Trump's, but at very least Gorsuch would've been considered a mainstream Republican nominee.
This was always the party's agenda. Trump is a chaotic and fucked catalyst for what looked for a period to be the failing agenda of mainstream Republican electeds.
posted by kensington314 at 12:28 PM on July 1 [11 favorites]
Vehement Dissent From Supreme Court’s Liberal Wing Laments Vast Expansion of Presidential Power
slyt
posted by y2karl at 12:33 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
slyt
posted by y2karl at 12:33 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
Clarence Thomas: accused of sexual harassment
John Roberts: nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
Samuel Alito: nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
Brett Kavanaugh: accused of sexual harassment; nominated by a president who lost the popular vote who has also been accused of sexual assault
Neil Gorsuch: nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
Amy Coney Barrett: nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
posted by kirkaracha at 12:36 PM on July 1 [13 favorites]
John Roberts: nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
Samuel Alito: nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
Brett Kavanaugh: accused of sexual harassment; nominated by a president who lost the popular vote who has also been accused of sexual assault
Neil Gorsuch: nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
Amy Coney Barrett: nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
posted by kirkaracha at 12:36 PM on July 1 [13 favorites]
Vehement Dissent From Supreme Court’s Liberal Wing Laments Vast Expansion of Presidential Power
"I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hmm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object."
posted by kirkaracha at 12:38 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
"I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hmm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object."
posted by kirkaracha at 12:38 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
Vehement Dissent From Supreme Court’s Liberal Wing Laments Vast Expansion of Presidential Power
aka A Quiet Place: the Day Before
posted by y2karl at 12:38 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
aka A Quiet Place: the Day Before
posted by y2karl at 12:38 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
Liberals need to stop this “republicans lost the popular vote and therefore they’re illegitimate!!!!1”. No, that’s not how it works. The electoral college sucks but it’s what we have, republicans didn’t create it to game the system, it’s the rules we’re playing with. Let’s get rid of it of course, but don’t fool yourself into believing that if the dems won the electoral college but lost the popular vote you would somehow think the dem pres would be illegitimate. Just stupid.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:39 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:39 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
It's not that the Republicans lost the popular vote and they are therefore illegitimate. They lost the popular vote and therefore they don't represent the popular vote. They were not what the people wanted. Don't blame the people. (Bush II, 2nd term, won the popular vote, BTW)
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:48 PM on July 1
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:48 PM on July 1
I'll leave the problem of being a hypocrite to those in that other, imaginary timeline.
In this timeline Republicans have repeatedly failed to win the popular vote. And I don't see any problem with calling them illegitimate. And even though the net effect of labeling a president as illegitimate hasn't really done much, why would you restrict that particular insult? To be needlessly fair?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:48 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
In this timeline Republicans have repeatedly failed to win the popular vote. And I don't see any problem with calling them illegitimate. And even though the net effect of labeling a president as illegitimate hasn't really done much, why would you restrict that particular insult? To be needlessly fair?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:48 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
Isn't it both things? We don't have to quibble about this. We have to win on the unjust and racist-at-its-origin system that we have.
And, we have to acknowledge that the voting system as it is structured is unjust, racist-at-its-origin, and needing reform. Because it created a set of outcomes that are undemocratic.
And, it's important to acknowledge that Republicans have a much easier time winning on those terms than on fair terms. This is in part because of our self-concept as fellow countrypersons. It's incredibly demobilizing to feel like you're part of a minority rump of the electorate when you aren't, to feel like you're in a country full of people who chose this and aren't worth saving. I see this all the time on MetaFilter, and in my own friend group, and I see it creep into my own sense of things, that the majority of people in the US would entertain a Trump presidency, or that forty percent would, or whatever. The implication that we're an unsalvageable country. At its core it's a nihilistic viewpoint that is essentially void of a politics.
It's important to know that these things, technically, are not true. We are part of the formally and informally disenfranchised majority who did not ask for this. It's important to talk about that and to act accordingly as activists and voters.
posted by kensington314 at 1:00 PM on July 1 [21 favorites]
And, we have to acknowledge that the voting system as it is structured is unjust, racist-at-its-origin, and needing reform. Because it created a set of outcomes that are undemocratic.
And, it's important to acknowledge that Republicans have a much easier time winning on those terms than on fair terms. This is in part because of our self-concept as fellow countrypersons. It's incredibly demobilizing to feel like you're part of a minority rump of the electorate when you aren't, to feel like you're in a country full of people who chose this and aren't worth saving. I see this all the time on MetaFilter, and in my own friend group, and I see it creep into my own sense of things, that the majority of people in the US would entertain a Trump presidency, or that forty percent would, or whatever. The implication that we're an unsalvageable country. At its core it's a nihilistic viewpoint that is essentially void of a politics.
It's important to know that these things, technically, are not true. We are part of the formally and informally disenfranchised majority who did not ask for this. It's important to talk about that and to act accordingly as activists and voters.
posted by kensington314 at 1:00 PM on July 1 [21 favorites]
one voter converted from your right is worth two disaffected voters in the bush
posted by torokunai at 1:05 PM on July 1
posted by torokunai at 1:05 PM on July 1
Is preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States an official act?
Asking for a friend.
posted by mazola at 1:09 PM on July 1 [8 favorites]
Asking for a friend.
posted by mazola at 1:09 PM on July 1 [8 favorites]
as far as I can tell, this completely invalidates the classified documents[...]hoarding case
Can you explain your reasoning? All the allegedly illegal actions at the center of the classified documents indictment are things he did when he was no longer president.
(But no matter: that's the one that was randomly assigned to the corrupt and/or incompetent and/or neofascist brainwormed Judge Cannon, so it's been sabotaged through other means.)
posted by nobody at 1:12 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
Can you explain your reasoning? All the allegedly illegal actions at the center of the classified documents indictment are things he did when he was no longer president.
(But no matter: that's the one that was randomly assigned to the corrupt and/or incompetent and/or neofascist brainwormed Judge Cannon, so it's been sabotaged through other means.)
posted by nobody at 1:12 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
The Trump Biden debate put in perspective. (via)
So I wanna say this. At the debate on Wednesday, Joe Biden had a bad night. That's it. He had a bad night. Let's just say that.posted by kirkaracha at 1:41 PM on July 1 [23 favorites]
Joe Biden had a bad night; Donald Trump is a bad person. There's a big difference between the two.
Joe Biden had a bad night; Donald Trump gave us the Dobbs decision.
Joe Biden had a bad night; Donald Trump called some countries "shithole countries."
Joe Biden had a bad night, yeah; Donald said that there were people in Charlottesville who were good people.
Joe Biden had a bad night; Donald Trump wants to take away your health care.
Joe Biden had a bad night; OK, how much we gonna talk about this? Donald Trump gave us four bad years and he will give us four more bad years very quickly.
You know how we know that? Because he's told us that with the Project 2025. He told us what he wants to do.
And one more thing: if Donald Trump gets four more years, he's gonna put more people on that Supreme Court, which would take him not just through our lives, through your children's life.
Joe Biden had a bad night; Donald Trump is a monster of a human being. Compare the two.
Everyone stop clutching the pearls, everyone get over it. Everyone get out there, make phone calls, knock on doors, and work.
Joe Biden had a bad night, but Joe Biden has had a very good presidency. Thank you everybody.
Vehement Dissent From Supreme Court’s Liberal Wing Laments Vast Expansion of Presidential Power
Liberals OWN Six Republicans with COMMON SENSE!!!! 🤯 #destroyed
posted by penduluum at 1:44 PM on July 1 [7 favorites]
Liberals OWN Six Republicans with COMMON SENSE!!!! 🤯 #destroyed
posted by penduluum at 1:44 PM on July 1 [7 favorites]
Our acquiesense to corrupt rules and institutions makes us accomplices to our enemies and soon to be rulers. No amount of Ruby slipper heel-knocking will return us to democracy, rule of law and the norms you grew up with. Win or lose there is no time machine and no going back
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 1:48 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 1:48 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
I would really hate to be a Secret Service agent right about now. If I were advising Biden, I’d have calculated him the same way the Majority has: he’s too much of an enabler and certainly won’t flex his newfound immunity the way we all know Trump would in Biden’s shoes. I’d also advise him, his family, VP Harris and her family, to have a safety plan to flee the extradition jurisdiction of the US if the Dems lose in November.
I’m tired of living in interesting times.
posted by edithkeeler at 1:51 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
I’m tired of living in interesting times.
posted by edithkeeler at 1:51 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
torokunai You're presupposing that there's much success converting right wing voters. So far that doesn't seem to be working well for the Democrats.
Maybe, and I know it's a crazy thought, but possibly if the Democrats tried reaching out to and protecting the rights of minority voters it might help them? Instead of acting like white racists are the only people in the universe who matter?
edithkeeler Meh. Unless there's an escape plan for the roughly 50% of America who will be facing violence and abuse under Trump I don't want elites to be able to flee either. I have no interest in watching our betters get to flee the hellscape they decided to condemn us to.
If they had skin in the game, as they like to say in DC cocktail parties, they'd care more.
posted by sotonohito at 2:04 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
Maybe, and I know it's a crazy thought, but possibly if the Democrats tried reaching out to and protecting the rights of minority voters it might help them? Instead of acting like white racists are the only people in the universe who matter?
edithkeeler Meh. Unless there's an escape plan for the roughly 50% of America who will be facing violence and abuse under Trump I don't want elites to be able to flee either. I have no interest in watching our betters get to flee the hellscape they decided to condemn us to.
If they had skin in the game, as they like to say in DC cocktail parties, they'd care more.
posted by sotonohito at 2:04 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
edithkeeler: " If I were advising Biden, I’d have calculated him the same way the Majority has: he’s too much of an enabler and certainly won’t flex his newfound immunity the way we all know Trump would in Biden’s shoes. "
I have to assume that the right-wing majority on the court came to this decision based on two understandings:
1. Biden will not exercise this newfound power.
2. Trump will.
posted by adamrice at 2:10 PM on July 1 [9 favorites]
I have to assume that the right-wing majority on the court came to this decision based on two understandings:
1. Biden will not exercise this newfound power.
2. Trump will.
posted by adamrice at 2:10 PM on July 1 [9 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. Wishing violence on other people (yes, even them) is against our content policy.
posted by loup (staff) at 2:21 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
posted by loup (staff) at 2:21 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
"Well, we just lost our democracy. The Supreme Court's ruling this morning is pretty much the worst case and went much farther than anyone expected. The majority made the President into a king, saying that he/she has absolute immunity for official acts related to constitutionally-granted powers. Now a President, the constitutionally-authorized commander in chief, can order the military to assassinate his/her political rivals and may not be prosecuted for it. The Court was clear that courts may not ever look at the motives behind the President's official acts.
And they did Trump a huge favor by remanding the case down to the district court to start the process all over again of deciding which of Trump's actions were "official" or "unofficial" acts -- even though both the district and appeals courts already did that. That process will make it impossible for the case to go to trial before November, meaning that if Trump gets elected he can appoint an Attorney General who will fire Jack Smith and make the entire thing go away. (they also wrote in a footnote that the district court should dismiss some of the charges based upon the Fischer ruling last week on "obstruction of an official proceeding") They also effectively made it impossible for the Georgia case to go forward quickly to trial by muddying the waters as to whether Trump talking to Georgia officials was an "official act." And in a concurring opinion, Thomas told Judge Cannon to rule that Smith wasn't properly appointed -- which even if it eventually gets overruled, will delay that case as well for at least a year. So the Court ensured this morning that there will be no more trials of Trump before the election.
The only silver lining in the ruling is that they ruled against Trump's argument that the President may only be prosecuted after a Congressional impeachment.
The November election is now a five-alarm fire. If Trump gets back into office he will know that he can do whatever he wants as long as he can put forward some kind of argument that it is an "official act." He will use the full powers of the executive branch to destroy his political enemies and entrench himself in power. And he will know that the Supreme Court will support him. The first time we were lucky that he mostly surrounded himself with incompetents. This time that won't be the case.
If we care at all about democracy, we all have to do everything we can to ensure that Trump does not get elected in November."
— Kevin Schofield, columnist at South Seattle Emerald, from a post he made on facebook this morning.
posted by bz at 2:28 PM on July 1 [11 favorites]
And they did Trump a huge favor by remanding the case down to the district court to start the process all over again of deciding which of Trump's actions were "official" or "unofficial" acts -- even though both the district and appeals courts already did that. That process will make it impossible for the case to go to trial before November, meaning that if Trump gets elected he can appoint an Attorney General who will fire Jack Smith and make the entire thing go away. (they also wrote in a footnote that the district court should dismiss some of the charges based upon the Fischer ruling last week on "obstruction of an official proceeding") They also effectively made it impossible for the Georgia case to go forward quickly to trial by muddying the waters as to whether Trump talking to Georgia officials was an "official act." And in a concurring opinion, Thomas told Judge Cannon to rule that Smith wasn't properly appointed -- which even if it eventually gets overruled, will delay that case as well for at least a year. So the Court ensured this morning that there will be no more trials of Trump before the election.
The only silver lining in the ruling is that they ruled against Trump's argument that the President may only be prosecuted after a Congressional impeachment.
The November election is now a five-alarm fire. If Trump gets back into office he will know that he can do whatever he wants as long as he can put forward some kind of argument that it is an "official act." He will use the full powers of the executive branch to destroy his political enemies and entrench himself in power. And he will know that the Supreme Court will support him. The first time we were lucky that he mostly surrounded himself with incompetents. This time that won't be the case.
If we care at all about democracy, we all have to do everything we can to ensure that Trump does not get elected in November."
— Kevin Schofield, columnist at South Seattle Emerald, from a post he made on facebook this morning.
posted by bz at 2:28 PM on July 1 [11 favorites]
That leaves tax fraud, and state-level crimes. NY Criminal Statute of Limitations. In 2019, Trump became a resident of Florida; Florida's Civil Statute of Limitations Laws & Criminal Statute of Limitations.
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:41 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:41 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
In the great oval room
There was a big gold chair
And a comb-over of hair
And a picture of a wall going up everywhere
And there were two small hands
And a pair of tan fans
And a tweet and a bray and the Justice's say:
"You're immune from the fray"
Goodnight room
Goodnight loon
Goodnight walls going up everywhere soon
Goodnight hands
Goodnight fans
Goodnight tweets
Goodnight brays
Goodnight to the Justice's say:
"You're immune from the fray"
Goodnight democracy
Goodnight autonomy
Goodnight to the slide
From freedom to tyranny
Goodnight intelligence
Lost to negligence
Goodnight brave souls
Fallen from leaks untold
Goodnight America
No longer a tower
Goodnight to the end
Of its global power
Goodnight Constitution
In quiet dissolution
Goodnight, goodnight
To the dimming of the light.
posted by metatuesday at 3:05 PM on July 1 [7 favorites]
There was a big gold chair
And a comb-over of hair
And a picture of a wall going up everywhere
And there were two small hands
And a pair of tan fans
And a tweet and a bray and the Justice's say:
"You're immune from the fray"
Goodnight room
Goodnight loon
Goodnight walls going up everywhere soon
Goodnight hands
Goodnight fans
Goodnight tweets
Goodnight brays
Goodnight to the Justice's say:
"You're immune from the fray"
Goodnight democracy
Goodnight autonomy
Goodnight to the slide
From freedom to tyranny
Goodnight intelligence
Lost to negligence
Goodnight brave souls
Fallen from leaks untold
Goodnight America
No longer a tower
Goodnight to the end
Of its global power
Goodnight Constitution
In quiet dissolution
Goodnight, goodnight
To the dimming of the light.
posted by metatuesday at 3:05 PM on July 1 [7 favorites]
“The President Is Now a King”: The Most Blistering Lines From Dissents in the Trump Immunity Case
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.”
posted by robbyrobs at 3:05 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.”
posted by robbyrobs at 3:05 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
Unless I'm missing something, ageism would be to assume that Biden can't handle the demands of the office or the campaign because of his advanced years, even though there is no evidence that he is slipping. When he very publicly demonstrates that he absolutely cannot consistently do what is required anymore (although he could at a younger age), that's not ageism, that's just reality. Being anti-ageism doesn't mean I have to believe that everyone is as capable at 80 as they were at 35.
Maybe ageism isn't the right word, but I do think it is ableism, because I think what people saw on debate night was a man with a lifelong stutter struggling with word retrieval (e.g., Biden substituting "malfeasance" when in context he was struggling with saying "malpractice") while having a cold in a rapid-fire stressful situation. A stutter and a cold is not evidence of senility.
Besides, there's a lot of work being done here with the phrase "demands of the office or the campaign." Almost none of the people calling for Biden's replacement on cognitive grounds are actually saying that Biden is unfit to be in office. If they truly believed that, they should be calling for Biden's resignation today, but they're not doing that. Most of the people who are calling for Biden's replacement are doing so because they think he is not up to campaigning, not because the Biden Administration is unfit to govern. It's all just optics & we should recognize that.
If I'm wrong and Biden drops dead tomorrow, we already have someone in the vice-presidency who can take over for him with no interruption in continuity of government. The discussion about replacing Biden with Harris or Whitmer or Pritzker or Newsom etc. etc. is mostly just wishcasting about coming up with One. Weird. Trick. that will allow the Democrats to retain the advantages of incumbency without actually running an incumbent. It doesn't work like that. That's not how any of this works.
posted by jonp72 at 3:12 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Maybe ageism isn't the right word, but I do think it is ableism, because I think what people saw on debate night was a man with a lifelong stutter struggling with word retrieval (e.g., Biden substituting "malfeasance" when in context he was struggling with saying "malpractice") while having a cold in a rapid-fire stressful situation. A stutter and a cold is not evidence of senility.
Besides, there's a lot of work being done here with the phrase "demands of the office or the campaign." Almost none of the people calling for Biden's replacement on cognitive grounds are actually saying that Biden is unfit to be in office. If they truly believed that, they should be calling for Biden's resignation today, but they're not doing that. Most of the people who are calling for Biden's replacement are doing so because they think he is not up to campaigning, not because the Biden Administration is unfit to govern. It's all just optics & we should recognize that.
If I'm wrong and Biden drops dead tomorrow, we already have someone in the vice-presidency who can take over for him with no interruption in continuity of government. The discussion about replacing Biden with Harris or Whitmer or Pritzker or Newsom etc. etc. is mostly just wishcasting about coming up with One. Weird. Trick. that will allow the Democrats to retain the advantages of incumbency without actually running an incumbent. It doesn't work like that. That's not how any of this works.
posted by jonp72 at 3:12 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
If anybody cares, Biden is speaking tonight about the SC ruling. 7PM eastern
posted by bluesky43 at 3:19 PM on July 1 [7 favorites]
posted by bluesky43 at 3:19 PM on July 1 [7 favorites]
that will allow the Democrats to retain the advantages of incumbency without actually running an incumbent. It doesn't work like that. That's not how any of this works.
But the advantage the Dems have isn't just the incumbency, it's the absolute gift that there are republicans and independents ready to vote for almost anyone but Trump. Those are the folks that matter in this election, and those are the folks most likely to be swayed by a fresh candidate.
I'll still vote for Biden, but I sure as hell would campaign for a better nominee.
posted by OHenryPacey at 3:20 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
But the advantage the Dems have isn't just the incumbency, it's the absolute gift that there are republicans and independents ready to vote for almost anyone but Trump. Those are the folks that matter in this election, and those are the folks most likely to be swayed by a fresh candidate.
I'll still vote for Biden, but I sure as hell would campaign for a better nominee.
posted by OHenryPacey at 3:20 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
MSNBC is now reporting Biden will speak at 7:45.
posted by bluesky43 at 3:31 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
posted by bluesky43 at 3:31 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
But the advantage the Dems have isn't just the incumbency, it's the absolute gift that there are republicans and independents ready to vote for almost anyone but Trump. Those are the folks that matter in this election, and those are the folks most likely to be swayed by a fresh candidate.
If that were the case, polling data would show Harris or Pritzker or Whitmer or Newsom or Shapiro doing significantly better in the polls against Donald Trump than Joe Biden. But in many cases, Biden does better than or about as well as the rest of the Democratic bench. I would love to be proven wrong otherwise, because that would mean that there's a much easier solution to this. But there's no polls that say Kamala Harris or Gretchen Whitmer or Gavin Newsom etc. would beat Donald Trump by +5% in absolute vote share or two-party vote share in the way Biden beat Trump in 2020. If there is a specific Democratic candidate beating Donald Trump by 5% in the two-party vote share in a reliable, legit poll, please cite it.
I think we're underestimating how much people just like Donald Trump & want to inflict more of him on the rest of us.
posted by jonp72 at 3:41 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
If that were the case, polling data would show Harris or Pritzker or Whitmer or Newsom or Shapiro doing significantly better in the polls against Donald Trump than Joe Biden. But in many cases, Biden does better than or about as well as the rest of the Democratic bench. I would love to be proven wrong otherwise, because that would mean that there's a much easier solution to this. But there's no polls that say Kamala Harris or Gretchen Whitmer or Gavin Newsom etc. would beat Donald Trump by +5% in absolute vote share or two-party vote share in the way Biden beat Trump in 2020. If there is a specific Democratic candidate beating Donald Trump by 5% in the two-party vote share in a reliable, legit poll, please cite it.
I think we're underestimating how much people just like Donald Trump & want to inflict more of him on the rest of us.
posted by jonp72 at 3:41 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
At this stage of the game a 5% is a huge gap. The election is months away and most people are voting along party lines. I think the big threat is Biden publicly deteriorating again, and then he would have to be replaced way too late and then there’s no runway to ingratiate Harris with the public.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:46 PM on July 1
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:46 PM on July 1
MSNBC is now reporting Biden will speak at 7:45.
Drinking and praying that this is him handing the gun to Kamala Harris, someone who may actually use the fucking thing that SCOTUS has seen fit to invent out of whole cloth.
Which is weird, given how much I'm not a fan of the cop shit she was pulling prior to being VP.
posted by Slackermagee at 3:51 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
Drinking and praying that this is him handing the gun to Kamala Harris, someone who may actually use the fucking thing that SCOTUS has seen fit to invent out of whole cloth.
Which is weird, given how much I'm not a fan of the cop shit she was pulling prior to being VP.
posted by Slackermagee at 3:51 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
Are they daring Biden to exercise this newfound power knowing that whatever he does will be considered an overreach that will tank the election for him?
Biden would be stupid to do much more than call this an obviously overbroad decision (and perhaps wrongly decided) before the election. He would be a hero if, after the election (presuming Trump wins), he declared Trump and a few Supreme Court justices terrorists and ordered them hauled off to a CIA black site and they just so happened to die on the way, and then let the normal operation of law decide who would be inaugurated in January.
posted by wierdo at 3:52 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
Biden would be stupid to do much more than call this an obviously overbroad decision (and perhaps wrongly decided) before the election. He would be a hero if, after the election (presuming Trump wins), he declared Trump and a few Supreme Court justices terrorists and ordered them hauled off to a CIA black site and they just so happened to die on the way, and then let the normal operation of law decide who would be inaugurated in January.
posted by wierdo at 3:52 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
Curious about what his response will be. I suspect he's going to high road this. But, given the powers of a King, the high road is to ensure nobody else has the powers of a King, and if Biden has the courage for that, well, then I'm very wrong about him.
posted by dis_integration at 3:52 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 3:52 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
As the late, great Bill Paxton said, "We're on an express elevator to hell, going down!"
posted by kirkaracha at 3:55 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
posted by kirkaracha at 3:55 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
polling data would show Harris or Pritzker or Whitmer or Newsom or Shapiro doing significantly better in the polls against Donald Trump than Joe Biden
Gonna guess that for the average winnable voter the name recognition ranking here goes something like
1. Random tight-end from their favorite college team
2. Local barista and/or regular greeter at Wal-Mart
3. Harris
4. Newsom if Fox viewer
5. Whitmer
6. Pritzker/Shapiro tied for never having been heard of in the first place
These folks aren't known quantities and they aren't going to poll well in the extreme abstract. Their polling would change if they entered the race and there were considerable "breaking news" style coverage of them everywhere for weeks during the period where most people start tuning into the race. Would it go up? Would it go down? These are not predictable variables, but polling data about as-of-today unknown or unconsidered people doesn't seem strong, to me.
posted by kensington314 at 3:57 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
Gonna guess that for the average winnable voter the name recognition ranking here goes something like
1. Random tight-end from their favorite college team
2. Local barista and/or regular greeter at Wal-Mart
3. Harris
4. Newsom if Fox viewer
5. Whitmer
6. Pritzker/Shapiro tied for never having been heard of in the first place
These folks aren't known quantities and they aren't going to poll well in the extreme abstract. Their polling would change if they entered the race and there were considerable "breaking news" style coverage of them everywhere for weeks during the period where most people start tuning into the race. Would it go up? Would it go down? These are not predictable variables, but polling data about as-of-today unknown or unconsidered people doesn't seem strong, to me.
posted by kensington314 at 3:57 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
I always read all of these USA politics threads and never comment because all y'all seem to know way more than I do. As well as me using words like a sledgehammer.
Whatever you want to attribute it to, Biden performed poorly at the debate and folks are justifiably concerned in the face of what we're up against. Continuing the semantic argument about terminology concerning Biden's debate performance is a derail that has already been addressed by the mods. No reason to keep using language some find offensive. There's plenty of ways to address your fears as well as his disturbingly poor debate appearance without alienating allies.
I strongly dislike Biden! I'm in favor of full-bore socialism! The American political discourse is utter nonsense and insulting to anyone even slightly intelligent! BUT I WILL LITERALLY VOTE FOR HIM EVEN IF HE'S ACTUALLY DEAD BECAUSE THE OTHER GUY IS VLAD THE IMPALER.
Carry on. I don't do nuance well.
posted by SystematicAbuse at 3:58 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
Whatever you want to attribute it to, Biden performed poorly at the debate and folks are justifiably concerned in the face of what we're up against. Continuing the semantic argument about terminology concerning Biden's debate performance is a derail that has already been addressed by the mods. No reason to keep using language some find offensive. There's plenty of ways to address your fears as well as his disturbingly poor debate appearance without alienating allies.
I strongly dislike Biden! I'm in favor of full-bore socialism! The American political discourse is utter nonsense and insulting to anyone even slightly intelligent! BUT I WILL LITERALLY VOTE FOR HIM EVEN IF HE'S ACTUALLY DEAD BECAUSE THE OTHER GUY IS VLAD THE IMPALER.
Carry on. I don't do nuance well.
posted by SystematicAbuse at 3:58 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
You know where all this is heading, right? Changing the 22nd Amendment back to having no limits to how many terms a president can serve.
Yes, his AmCon goons are already op-ed'ing this.
posted by symbioid at 4:03 PM on July 1
Yes, his AmCon goons are already op-ed'ing this.
posted by symbioid at 4:03 PM on July 1
Where is the Biden speaking at 745 link? I haven’t found any information on it
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:04 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:04 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
President Biden Delivers Remarks on Supreme Court Immunity Ruling [C-SPAN]. President Biden delivers remarks on the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision that presidents have immunity for official acts but not unofficial ones.
posted by mazola at 4:07 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
posted by mazola at 4:07 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
« Older Beach Reading to Defeat the Patriarchy | What If... The Phantom Menace came out in 1987? Newer »
posted by potrzebie at 7:42 AM on July 1 [102 favorites]