Biden surrogates brushed off questions about reining in the court, while emphasizing the gravity of a second Trump term.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that American presidents have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for any “official acts” they take while in office. For President Joe Biden, this should be great news. Suddenly a host of previously unthinkable options have opened up to him: He could dispatch Seal Team 6 to Mar-A-Lago with orders to neutralize the “primary threat to freedom and democracy” in the United States. He could issue an edict that all digital or physical evidence of his debate performance last week be destroyed. Or he could just use this chilling partisan decision, the latest 6-3 ruling in a term that was characterized by a staggering number of them, as an opportunity to finally embrace the movement to reform the Supreme Court.

But Biden is not planning to do any of that. Shortly after the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Trump v. The United States, the Biden campaign held a press call with surrogates, including Harry Dunn, a Capitol police officer who was on duty the day Trump supporters stormed the building on Jan. 6; Reps. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas); and deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks.

Their message was simple: It’s terrifying to contemplate what Donald Trump might do with these powers if he’s reelected.

“We have to do everything in our power to stop him,” Fulks said.

Everything, that is, except take material action to rein in the increasingly lawless and openly right-wing Supreme Court.

  • InfynisEnglish
    3·
    6 months ago

    But where did they say no one can question whether something is official?

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          72·
          6 months ago

          But that’s not all. They also ruled that you can’t use official acts in the process of determining what wasn’t an official act. If Biden ordered the military to assassinate Trump, the fact that the President is Constitutionally the head of the military and that the military must obey orders from the President couldn’t be used as evidence that he gave an illegal order.

          This situation is fucked up.

          • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
            13·
            6 months ago

            The US military can choose to ignore illegal orders to execute citizens protected by the Constitution. They did not swear an oath to the president, only an oath to protect the Constitution.

            No military leader will want to go to a military tribunal where arbitration is decided as punishment and has no jury by peers. It would be either a death sentence if any military official followed the order, or a hard life in a military prison.

            In fact, I read that it is codified in the US law Uniform Code of Military justice to be obligated to deny an illegal or an immoral order.

            • Billiam@lemmy.world
              71·
              6 months ago

              My dude, you’re acting like Monday’s decision didn’t happen.

              SCOTUS delineated presidential immunity into three situations:

              1. Unofficial acts- no immunity.

              2. Official acts- presumed immunity. However, no official acts can be used to determine the legality or official-ness of an act.

              3. Constitutionally delegated exercises of authority- total immunity.

              In other words, laws are subordinate to Presidential exercises of Constitutional authority. Under the decision rendered by SCOTUS on Monday, as the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, any order he gives the military he would have total immunity for and thus wouldn’t be “illegal” as such. Also, because the pardon power is listed in the Constitution, there’s no oversight for it either.

              So yes, the President could absolutely order the military to assassinate a citizen with the promise of pardoning them, and there’s literally no recourse anyone could take.

        • henfredemars@infosec.pubEnglish
          31·
          6 months ago

          Can you even consider the killing in the impeachment trial? He has absolute immunity from criminal acts.

          • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            6 months ago

            He has absolute immunity from Prosecution for official acts. Impeachment is not a Prosecution (a criminal court proceeding) in that sense: it’s a legislative act which looks a lot like a prosecution, but is fundamentally different. So impeachments are not bound by this same rule. Presidents can be impeached for anything, even the color of their shirt, if a majority of the House thinks it’s a “high crime or misdemeanor”.

        • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          6 months ago

          But who’s going to do the impeaching when everyone who would oppose it can simply also be killed?

          • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
            11·
            6 months ago

            Either you go buy a fucking gun and aggressively protest, or keep complaining online. I’m just saying it’s going to buff out either way.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          21·
          6 months ago

          You can be impeached for basically anything. But you still need 67 votes in the senate to be removed. And senators can also be murdered. Being able to have immunity for murder as long as you murder anyone who would deny it is a self-empowering ability.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              11·
              6 months ago

              I don’t think you’re quite getting the “he can kill anyone who would oppose him” issue.

              And literally that he has absolute immunity for acts in his constitutional powers, which including telling the military to kill people. At best the order would be refused, but that’s still not an illegal act. You don’t need to trust me, you can just read the dissenting Supreme Court justices. The “Seal Team 6” hypothetical was never addressed by the majority, because it’s a pretty direct consequence of the ruling, just something they hope wouldn’t happen or wouldn’t work.

                • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                  11·
                  6 months ago

                  LOL, this is all just fantasy law, and the stuff that’s real is stripped by this ruling. The president can use powers designated to them in the constitution with absolute immunity. Regular law can’t change what those powers are, only constitutional amendments. They used to make using them in certain ways illegal, but that’s exactly what this ruling gives immunity against. All the guys doing the order, they could still be liable for doing illegal actions, but the president is immune, and they may not actually have any reason to think the president has not determined that the correct circumstances exist to make it legal. And if they agreed with the president he could just pardon them so no one was liable.

                  Also, I have no idea why you think the FBI is a judicial organization. It’s in the executive. It’s normally, by custom, treated as semi-independent, but that’s a custom, not a law, and the only non-constitutional act the ruling explicitly said is official is the president telling the justice department to do things. Again, the people doing the things may have to worry about the law, but the president ordering them does not and can pardon them if he wants to.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      11·
      6 months ago

      Any power outlined in the constitution is absolutely official, which arguably covers murder via the military. But if you murder the people who would say something isn’t official, an entire world of options opens up. The survivors will either agree with you or want to not die.

      Which is notably why it’s so dangerous under Trump. Trump can get the broad immunity without murdering most of the court (and rightfully setting off alarm bells/triggering rebellion) first.