Recent Posts1
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Last post by catastrophe on Today at 04:22:23 PM »I mean, name one politician you could trust with that power?
There is no human that can go through what is needed to go through to be president that wouldn't abuse the crap out of that power.
Something like 20-30 companies would effectively hold that same power immediately upon the ruling being made. Is this not setting up the king for a day scenario, but forever instead of a day?
I didn't listen to the argument and don't know what the specific case issues are, but it seems to me like SCOTUS could easily avoid almost all the legal questions involved by just saying there is no way you can consider a president's conspiracy to undermine his own elected ouster to be an "official act" of a president. That is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous thing I could imagine any U.S. court ruling--much less the Supreme Court.
Trump's position is premised on the argument that he should only be subject to criminal prosecution if he is impeached and convicted by the senate, but if undermining the political process itself is part of the immunity then that qualification is meaningless in the hands of a tyrant, who could simply threaten/coerce/assassinate any who would seek to carry out impeachment proceedings. The democratic experiment would be over.
That may sound alarmist, but what I'm actually getting at here is "losing" this case only means that the Supreme Court declines to give clearer instructions as to whether immunity for criminal charges is ever an option for acts taken by a president. There's no way he gets out of facing charges for Jan. 6.
