01 July 2024

The Supreme Court Just Exonerated Richard Nixon

In a nakedly corrupt and partisan decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the President of the United States has absolute immunity for any actions he takes in an official capacity.

Many people have noted that this technically means that Biden could order a drone strike on Donald Trump, as his role of commander-in-chief of the military is explicitly an official role.

Also, it means that a drone strike on Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barret is legal.

More significantly, and more likely, this ruling means that if the President orders the military to commit a war crime, the President cannot be prosecuted.

So, if Biden were to use the military to detain Cliven Bundy, Ammon Bundy, and Ryan Bundy, and transport them to the Guantanamo Bay prison, or if Donald Trump were to order his troops to open fire on asylum speakers on the border, or if George W. Bush were to authorize the use of torture, there could never be a a prosecution.

As an FYI to the historically challenged, the second case, Trump massacring immigrants than Biden locking up the Bundy's, and George W. Bush did explicitly authorize torture, but his successor, Barack Obama, decided not to prosecute anyone for torturing.

In any case, we are f%$#ed until the corrupt members of the Supreme Court leave the court:

Welp, Donald Trump won. The Supreme Court today ruled that presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for official acts, then contended that pressuring the vice president and the Department of Justice to overthrow the government was an “official act,” then said that talking to advisers or making public statements are “official acts” as well, and then determined that evidence of what presidents say and do cannot be used against them to establish that their acts are “unofficial.”

The ruling from the Supreme Court was 6-3, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, on a straight party-line vote, with all the Republican-appointed justices joining to give the president the power of a king. While some parts of the federal indictment against Trump will be remanded back down to the district-court trial judge to determine whether any of Trump’s actions were “unofficial” (“unofficial” acts, the court says are not entitled to immunity), Trump’s victory in front of the Supreme Court is total. Essentially, all he has to do is claim that everything he did to plot a coup was part of his “official” duties, and the Supreme Court provided no clear method or evidentiary standard that can be used to challenge that presumption.
  • Legally, there are two critical things to understand about the totality of the court’s ruling here: The immunity is absolute
  • There is no legislative way to get rid of what the court has given
On the first point, the immunity granted to Trump in this case far exceeds the immunity granted to, say, police officers or other government officials, when they act in their official capacities. Those officials are granted “qualified” immunity from civil penalties. Because the immunity is “qualified” it can be taken away (“pierced” is the legal jargon for taking away an official’s qualified immunity). People can bring evidence against officials and argue that they shouldn’t be given immunity because of the gravity or depravity of their acts.

I think that taking the Andrew Jackson tactic, "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

The Supreme Court, or at least ⅔ of the Supreme Court, are partisan and corrupt.

At the very least, the people should calling the Supreme Court, or at least ⅔ of the Supreme Court, partisan and corrupt.


Post a Comment