The corrupt conservative majority on the Court has ruled today that a President enjoys “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.”
Surely the currently constituted USA Supreme Court would hold that a Democratic president arresting a Republican rival would not be acting within their constitutional authority.
If a president can foster a riot to negate the results of an election without fear of judicial sanction, the arrest of a competing candidate must be the same.
Not having read the decision tho, I'm not sure if there was a Party exclusion.
I am suggesting that the current USA Supreme Court would be influenced by partisan positions in deciding whether a President's act was within or outside their constitutional authority.
Actually, they didn't give leave to any president to do anything they wanted; just Trump. Because...they said they'd decide on a case by case basis, so they'd never permit Biden to get away with what Trump does. And Biden wouldn't do anything improper in any case.
Is it true that the men who wrote the Us constitution gave their President kingly powers because they could not picture a constitutional democracy working otherwise?
And would Canada have done the same if we were constituted 100 years earlier?
Interesting decision and timing. Most aspiring dictators and their minions wait until they are in power before they change laws. For example Putin waited until he was President of Russia to change the term limits for President to effectively make himself President for life. The supporters of this decision and the 6 SCOTUS justices who made the decision do realize they have given this power to an actual sitting President whose primary duty is to protect the Constitution? Perhaps from them? Maybe groups like the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, those promoting Project 2025 and the degenerate MAGA party should all be a little nervous now they have given this power to Biden. Dollars to donuts there are scenarios already being run. After 50 years in US politics don't for one second think "Grandpa" Joe is soft or doubt his commitment to the United States and its constitution. King George IIII is suppose to have said at the time of the American Revolution, the people would want the Monarchy back to rule them and that is essentially what SCOTUS has given the people of the United States.
I find that when I share a Substack article I like on Facebook, including this one, Meta refuses to post it because I am allegedly trying to get lots of likes or imposing a ‘like’ opportunity on others! I find this quite twisted. Presume it has AI roots, but I also wonder if there is a rivalry between Substack and Meta?
Hmmm. I shared Prof MacFarlane's article about SCOTUS on my facebook profile and fb removed it. Damned if I understand their reasoning. This is the explanation I received:
"Spam
We don't allow people to use misleading links or content to trick people to visit, or stay on, a website.
Examples of things we don't allow
Telling people they must like a Page to access content on another site
Using irrelevant pop-ups on websites, to prevent people from leaving easily
Disguising a link as something on our platform, like a poll or video, to get clicks"
Does the #SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity grant US presidents an absolute power and immunity from the #ruleoflaw of kings on "official acts." No. Kings of England had no such power when its colonists in the Thirteen Colonies declared themselves independent; indeed, the constraints of the rule of law under English law were a chief defence of those who declared their indepedence.
Liberal democracy, rule of law, began with royal assent to the English Bill of Rights, 1689, William & Mary.
Constitutional monarchy distinguishes between the sovereign head of state in right of the people, above mere politics and political advantage self-interest, of the day and the temporary political head of government whose allegiance to the sovereign is service to the people, not mere accountability to be pushed aside as shown in the SCOTUS opinion.
The role of the monarch is cultural, political, and constitutional, to reign not rule; service, not political ambition is why it unites while heads of state who are also heads of government are eventual anachronisms which divide with no thought beyond self.
So, President Biden can now have President Trump arrested and moved to Gitmo and there would be no legal recourse outside the ballot box …
Surely the currently constituted USA Supreme Court would hold that a Democratic president arresting a Republican rival would not be acting within their constitutional authority.
If a president can foster a riot to negate the results of an election without fear of judicial sanction, the arrest of a competing candidate must be the same.
Not having read the decision tho, I'm not sure if there was a Party exclusion.
(This feels like a Beaver discussion).
I am suggesting that the current USA Supreme Court would be influenced by partisan positions in deciding whether a President's act was within or outside their constitutional authority.
Based on the USSC decision it would not matter since a President can ignore any law including those decided in the Court itself.
I know I'm being extra extreme but, it seems to me that such a decision undermines the whole concept of "Rule of Law" and is itself illegal.
Actually, they didn't give leave to any president to do anything they wanted; just Trump. Because...they said they'd decide on a case by case basis, so they'd never permit Biden to get away with what Trump does. And Biden wouldn't do anything improper in any case.
Would an official instructed by the President also be immune from criminal prosecution?
Would they also be immune from civil prosecution, including injunctions and writs of mandamus?
"… this immunity must be absolute…" "… but do not extend to areas where his authority is shared by Congress …"
Begging the question; why it does not apply to an action that is intended to undermine the certification of an election BY CONGRESS?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Yup, but don't think it would matter because a lot of amok can be run, like detentions and seizing of assets, before SCOTUS gets back from holidays.
Trump has already declared what he plans to do. Open House, anything goes. Good luck USA. You will need it
Is it true that the men who wrote the Us constitution gave their President kingly powers because they could not picture a constitutional democracy working otherwise?
And would Canada have done the same if we were constituted 100 years earlier?
No. In fact the US Constitution was written with a set of checks and balances precisely because the founders did not want a kingly president.
Interesting decision and timing. Most aspiring dictators and their minions wait until they are in power before they change laws. For example Putin waited until he was President of Russia to change the term limits for President to effectively make himself President for life. The supporters of this decision and the 6 SCOTUS justices who made the decision do realize they have given this power to an actual sitting President whose primary duty is to protect the Constitution? Perhaps from them? Maybe groups like the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, those promoting Project 2025 and the degenerate MAGA party should all be a little nervous now they have given this power to Biden. Dollars to donuts there are scenarios already being run. After 50 years in US politics don't for one second think "Grandpa" Joe is soft or doubt his commitment to the United States and its constitution. King George IIII is suppose to have said at the time of the American Revolution, the people would want the Monarchy back to rule them and that is essentially what SCOTUS has given the people of the United States.
I find that when I share a Substack article I like on Facebook, including this one, Meta refuses to post it because I am allegedly trying to get lots of likes or imposing a ‘like’ opportunity on others! I find this quite twisted. Presume it has AI roots, but I also wonder if there is a rivalry between Substack and Meta?
I posted the link to this article on fb and I got the same treatment from fb. Ironic given they permit all kinds of sponsored spam on the news feed.
I get those all the time. I ask for a review. And they "restore" my post almost immediately. Freakbook's AI/Algorithms are pretty dumb.
Huh, I just checked and they did restore this one. No explanation given.
Hmmm. I shared Prof MacFarlane's article about SCOTUS on my facebook profile and fb removed it. Damned if I understand their reasoning. This is the explanation I received:
"Spam
We don't allow people to use misleading links or content to trick people to visit, or stay on, a website.
Examples of things we don't allow
Telling people they must like a Page to access content on another site
Using irrelevant pop-ups on websites, to prevent people from leaving easily
Disguising a link as something on our platform, like a poll or video, to get clicks"
Does the #SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity grant US presidents an absolute power and immunity from the #ruleoflaw of kings on "official acts." No. Kings of England had no such power when its colonists in the Thirteen Colonies declared themselves independent; indeed, the constraints of the rule of law under English law were a chief defence of those who declared their indepedence.
Liberal democracy, rule of law, began with royal assent to the English Bill of Rights, 1689, William & Mary.
Constitutional monarchy distinguishes between the sovereign head of state in right of the people, above mere politics and political advantage self-interest, of the day and the temporary political head of government whose allegiance to the sovereign is service to the people, not mere accountability to be pushed aside as shown in the SCOTUS opinion.
The role of the monarch is cultural, political, and constitutional, to reign not rule; service, not political ambition is why it unites while heads of state who are also heads of government are eventual anachronisms which divide with no thought beyond self.
This very dystopian...
Unbelievable!!