At a crucial crossroads for American democracy, the Supreme Court slow walks Trump's immunity issue

At a crucial crossroads for American democracy, the Supreme Court slow walks Trump’s immunity issue

With the Supreme Court granting certiorari to Donald Trump on his immunity claims regarding the January 6th trial in Washington, we have reached a historic moment. The high court will now review the lower court ruling that a former president isn’t immune from prosecution for crimes he committed in office. but not until April. If the court agrees with Trumphim, it could lead America down a dark road.

Yes, broadly exposing the president to lawsuits or prosecutions for the thousands of judgment calls a president makes in the line of duty would cripple the presidency. But no one prosecuting Trump claims presidents should be broadly exposed to liability for their official decisions. Instead, the issue is framed by the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. It held that the president is immune from damages liability “for acts within ‘the outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.” The court has never extended that limitation to the president’s responsibility for a crime. Moreover, the court has never suggested that a president who commits a crime unconnected to his official duties enjoys any immunity at all.

  • paddirn@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1413·
    10 months ago

    SCOTUS is so anti-democratic. Why the hell does the fate of our democracy rest on the whims of Nine people holding lifetime appointments? I get that they want these people outside of the transitory world of politics, but that doesn’t really seem to have prevented politics from creeping into the Court anyways. If SCOTUS rules that POTUS has immunity while in office, then Biden should just suspend the election, declare martial law, arrest Trump, and lock up all the Russian sympathizers in Congress. Protecting the country from foreign agents seems like it should fall within the scope of the President’s powers.

    • cranakis@reddthat.com
      631·
      10 months ago

      I’m worried their plan is to wait until after the election. If Trump is elected, they then rule he has absolute power and democracy is basically dead at that point.

      • LocoOhNoEnglish
        545·
        10 months ago

        It already is. The rest of us just get to fight for scraps now.

        This decision is just the Supreme Court saying “let them eat cake.”

        It’s a shame we didn’t even make it to 250 years, but the Christians had to force a theocracy again. They don’t feel right unless they get to murder people for being different.

    • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.worldEnglish
      211·
      10 months ago

      Trump’s own lawyers said that the president could kill his political adversaries and be free from any charges.

    • rayyy@lemmy.world
      153·
      10 months ago

      We placed the fate of democracy on some greedy white guys who want nice motor coaches and luxury vacations

    • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgEnglish
      122·
      10 months ago

      A SCOTUS ruling in Trump’s favor would absolutely grant him the power to do that. For better or worse, though, I just don’t see that happening as it would set a very dangerous precedent. We may avoid a dictator in the short run, but it would absolutely enable the next.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      31·
      10 months ago

      Half of those 9 we’re put there by not democratically elected presidents, also nice detail to add there

  • DogPeePoo@lemm.ee
    391·
    10 months ago

    Looks like they are choosing the route of pitchforks, torches and chaos.

  • Zenjal@lemmy.world
    342·
    10 months ago

    If I understand the argument correctly, a sitting president near the end of their term, like say shmoe shmiden, decided to order the death of his political rival Tonald Drump and then step down as president before getting impeached, he could cause they didn’t impeach him before leaving office for said crime. I’m I getting that correct? I mean sure, in that hypothetical we’d have our first woman president for a very short time in the dumbest way, which is also on brand for the record.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      8·
      10 months ago

      also worth noting the extension to that situation:

      Shmoe Shmiden decides not to step down, and tells the same people who he originally ordered that they need to sit in the room for the impeachment vote with guns just to make sure the vote is fair. also if we lose the vote it was a sham thus anyone voting for impeachment is an undercover operative and should be handled accordingly… voila, no impeachment, no consequences

    • grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world
      4·
      10 months ago

      You have this correct which I why it is so ridiculous that they not only agreed to hear this but did so in a way that both allows Trump to avoid prosecution and will result in a legal precedent that he can use to stay in office and commit crimes while there. Pretty great for Trump.

      • Lemmeenym@lemm.eeEnglish
        4·
        10 months ago

        No but the only punishments that can be imposed if the person is found guilty is removal from office and being barred from holding future office.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      38·
      10 months ago

      It’s important to remember that they’d be giving Biden carte blanche to do whatever he wants, because he’ll still be in office when the ruling is made. Not that he’d actually have the balls to use the power they had given him, but if they grant blanket immunity to presidents then there’s nothing stopping Biden from simply dropping a missile on the SCOTUS, cancelling the election, and declaring himself the new POTUS-for-life.

      After all, what are they going to do? Prosecute him?

      • charles@lemmy.worldEnglish
        24·
        10 months ago

        After all, what are they going to do? Prosecute him?

        Yes. And be bald-faced hypocritical. They don’t give a shit about the rule of law. They only care about “winning”

      • KingBoo@lemmy.world
        6·
        10 months ago

        After all, what are they going to do? Prosecute him?

        Yes, they will.

        Why do you believe a group that doesn’t follow the rule of law will start doing so after they’ve empowered their biggest enemy? It makes no sense.

        Trump will likely gain immunity but the SCOTUS could declare it starts with the next president, or convict Biden of something else, citing an exception to immunity.

        We can’t assume they’re going to start playing by the rules when they’re actively rewriting the rulebook as we speak.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      17·
      10 months ago

      The SCOTUS kicked off the civil war and we’re pretty much back there again. I have no hope.

  • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
    261·
    10 months ago

    I have a feeling they’re going to find that there is immunity for acts taken as part of official duties. Which will get this kicked back down to the district court where the judge would rule these accusations have nothing to do with acts taken in his official capacity.

    The issue is that this all takes time and the schedule was tight enough beforehand. I doubt there’s a chance any trial is settled before the election, especially if the Supreme Court waits until the end of the term to rule on this.

  • _number8_@lemmy.worldEnglish
    202·
    10 months ago

    it’s already extremely dictator-y letting these obvious scumbags have lifetime control of the country

  • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
    17·
    10 months ago

    On the day of oral arguements, Joe Biden should invite seal team 6 to the white house. You know, for coffee and a foto op. Just to drive home the point.

  • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    14·
    10 months ago

    I can’t fucking believe this is still even a debate.

    I might be reading into it too much, but I think even if the Supreme Court did the right thing and prosecute Donald Trump, the first spark has been struck towards the burning fascist fire in America. The AskHistorians podcast drew plenty of similarities and parallel between the prelude to fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of Trump and January 6 insurrection. There were many times when the Roman Republic was under threat even before Julius Caesar came into scene but had been mitigated. However, corruption by the elites had been getting worse and populist anger had been piling up until it could not be contained anymore and thus the decline of Roman Republic was inevitable. This seems to be the case with USA at the moment. Trump is a buffoon and could be prosecuted. But someday, someone more intelligent than him could erode American democracy for good. Trump only set the precedence and spark, and a calculating demagogue could learn from Trump’s mistakes…

  • LocoOhNoEnglish
    132·
    10 months ago

    “With Jan. 6 case, the Supreme Court takes America down the dark path to dictatorship.”

    FTFY

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    6·
    10 months ago

    I don’t understand why the supreme court even agreed to hear this case. If the President is immune from criminal liability while in office, then he is de-facto not subject to the very checks and balances that make up the language of the Constitution.

    How can you say the legislative has the authority to impeach and convict the President if the President himself can have them all publicly assassinated before a vote can occur? What happens when the President decides he doesn’t think Congress can override his veto and simply ignores them? What happens when the President decides he wants Rudy Giulianni, Ben Shapiro and the MyPillow Guy to replace all the liberal justices on the bench? Who is going to be able to stop the guy who has immunity from the rules from changing them as they see fit?

  • Suavevillain@lemmy.world
    43·
    10 months ago

    It is time to get ready for the worst timeline because that is what we are getting at this point. This country has always been a fascist country.