Hysteria (or pretend hysteria; sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference) from Democrats after the immunity ruling from SCOTUS
“The biggest news out of the Court on Monday, of course, is a sweeping decision holding that former President Donald Trump was effectively allowed to do crimes while he was in office. Indeed, under the six Republican justices’ decision in Trump v. United States, it is very likely that a sitting president can order the military to assassinate his political rivals without facing any criminal consequences for doing so.”
Insane. Evidently written by 12-year-olds.
The author is Ian Millhiser, with a law degree from Duke and two books on the Supreme Court under his belt. Does he believe what he’s writing there, and that SCOTUS has actually ruled that way? Hard to tell; it depends how poor his legal education was and how extreme his partisan filter is. But my guess is that he’s well aware that it’s false, but he is making a political calculation that it will panic the rubes among the Democrats, and he’s willing to parrot the talking points that will accomplish that.
What he’s describing would be absolute immunity, which isn’t what SCOTUS ruled and the idea of being immune from prosecution for an assassination is obviously absurd (unless the assassination was accomplished by a Democrat, and the trial was in DC or NY).
But I shouldn’t blame Millhiser or the others who are saying the Court said assassination was A-okay, because it was none other than a current Supreme Court justice, Sotomayor, who gave them their cues for the assertion in her dissent. Here’s what the wise Latina wrote, and the other two liberal justices concurred:
In her dissenting opinion to the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the conservative majority had enabled presidents to assassinate political rivals without fear of criminal prosecution.
“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor wrote. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
No, Sotomayor and the others are not insane. They are either stupid or lying – or there’s always both. I can’t read their minds, but I believe they know exactly what they’re doing here, and I believe they are well aware that’s not what the majority said or did. From the same article, here’s a summary description of the majority’s ruling:
…[T]he court found that presidents enjoy “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution” for actions taken within their constitutional authority and at least “presumptive immunity” for all other official acts.
The president does not have the constitutional authority to murder his rivals, nor would that be an official act of any sort even if he used the military to do it. But it serves the left to say otherwise, because their goal is to fan the flames of Trump fear.
None other than Bill Barr, no fan of Trump, points out the preposterous nature of Sotomayor’s so-called reasoning:
Former Attorney General Bill Barr brushed off what he called “horror stories” raised by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent on the high court’s ruling on former President Trump’s immunity claim.
“The worst example I think, the one that makes no sense whatsoever, is the idea he can use SEAL Team 6 to kill a political opponent. The president has the authority to defend the country against foreign enemies, armed conflict and so forth,” Barr said Monday on Fox News.
“He has the authority to direct the justice system against criminals at home. He doesn’t have authority to go and assassinate people,” he added. “So, whether he uses the SEAL team or a private hit man, it doesn’t matter; it doesn’t make it a carrying out of his authority. So, all these horror stories really are false.”
Even a non-lawyer ought to be able to understand that. But I repeat: Sotomayor’s dissent was aimed at inciting panic in those who either are unaware of the limits set by the majority opinion, or are susceptible to Trump derangement, or both.
Common sense? Not all that common these days.
[NOTE: And right on schedule:
One British Broadcasting Corporation presenter took it to a whole new level, though, openly encouraging Biden to assassinate his rival for the presidency:
“David Aaronovitch, who presents BBC Radio 4’s “Briefing Room” programme, had apparently clamoured for the 45th President’s killing online ‘on the basis that he is a threat to America’s security’.
“Posting on social media, Aaronovitch said: ‘If I was Biden I’d hurry up and have Trump murdered on the basis that he is a threat to America’s security’ – sparking instant outrage online.”
Of course strictly speaking, US Presidents have had foreign enemy combatants & designated terrorist leaders assasinated before (like Obama did with Bin Laden and Trump did with Qasem Soleimani).
Yes, but they were foreign enemy combatants and were killed outside the US. Same goes for the U.S. citizen ISIS member whom Obama had droned.
The SC ruling did not provide immunity from things outside the president’s constitutional authority. Issuing pardons is within his authority. Taking bribes is not. Also, use of US military force to assassinate anyone in this country is not within his authority, since it’s illegal. This leftist hysteria looks like projection; they’d like to kill Trump. I worry about that.
Didn’t a sitting President kill a US citizen with a Drone Strike? He got immunity, right?
Nonapod hints at it, and Kate gets the implication:
Yes, but they were foreign enemy combatants and were killed outside the US. Same goes for the U.S. citizen ISIS member whom Obama had droned.
– – – –
This leftist hysteria looks like projection…
Here is the link to that US citizen case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki
Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled al-Aulaqi, Arabic…; August 26, 1995 – October 14, 2011) was a 16-year-old United States citizen who was killed by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen. He was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki.
At the time young al-Awlaki was killed, the media did mention the problem. Hey, this kid is a US citizen. Don’t we usually get trials before a government execution? But there wasn’t that much concern about it, I suppose because the anointed one, Barak Obama, had done it. Rules have never been a concern of the left.
I don’t want to fundamentally disagree with neo or Kate, who are thinking correctly, but inside the box. But if we go outside the box at bit, like they do on the left, increasingly these days, things might look different.
And he was outside the US at the time. Is that really the sufficient condition? Don’t politicians travel outside the US?
Young al-Awlaki was said to be an enemy combatant at the time. And he probably was. But don’t courts determine the facts in cases like these? How hard would it be to make up stuff that would fake his combatant status?
The watershed example, in my opinion, is the Trump Russiagate fraud.
In the TV series House of Cards, which predated Russiagate, the White House re-election team, manipulates the NSA surveillance system to spy on their opposing candidate. In the TV version, only one guy with access is tapped to do it, and he is skulking around with his clearly criminal activity, and almost gets caught.
In the real Trump version, it is an elaborate conspiratorial hoax with many players that ultimate gets the whole deep state apparatus on board with it. It is absolutely mind boggling to me, when I think about what happened.
I actually think it would be much easier to fake the ingredients for an enemy combatant drone strike or an accidental killing via an attempted drone strike on a different supposed enemy combatant. Oops, so sorry.
I’m not disagreeing with the SC decision. I’m just saying that the projection isn’t that far fetched when dealing with extreme Machiavellian political types, which is where we are today. In a way, this whole argument avenue, apparently started by Sotomayor, is indicative of how screwed up our politics has become.
TommyJay, I see the problems. With reference to the SC decision in the Murthy case, that is, government pressure to censor free speech, I agree with Jonathan Turley who says that the remedy for these behaviors is at the ballot box. Same for unscrupulous and unethical presidents and appointees. I have some hope that at least some undecided voters will look at the gaslighting now being exposed and vote the b******s out.
https://thefederalist.com/2024/07/02/ex-fbi-counsel-behind-russiagate-biden-laptop-censorship-now-part-of-left-wing-election-network/
In an astonishing, to me, rebuke, Roberts publicly denounced the minority opinion as fear mongering. It’s astonishing to me because Roberts seems so focused on the SCOTUS being a a place where disagreements happen but still respectful of each other. The ladies must have really irritated him a lot for him to publicly tear them a new one.
TommyJay:
No court would defend the Machiavellian doings you describe unless it was an utterly corrupted court. If everything – the executive and the court – is utterly corrupted, a president could get away with basically anything, particularly if the military went along. But they don’t need this ruling for that, and this ruling is irrelevant to it.
“Posting on social media, Aaronovitch said: ‘If I was Biden I’d hurry up and have Trump murdered on the basis that he is a threat to America’s security’
Well, if I was a reader of Aaronovitch, I’d arrange for the Great Eraser in the Sky to obliterate everything he writes from now till Doomsday. That would fix him, and the BBC along with him.
There has been speculation that the Mar A Lago raid by the FBI, including plain clothes agents, was a masked assassination attempt on Trump that didn’t come off because he was in NY at the time. The Secret Service would have done its best, but that first half hour with the surveillance cameras off would have been very dangerous for Trump.
I’m reminded of that quote by Revel (via Tom Wolfe): “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.” Something like “The stench of political violence always emanates from the right and yet only materializes from the left.”
physicsguy notes astonishment at Robert’s bold rebuke to the Three Leftists. I’m more astonished that all Three signed and joined in Sotomayor’s dangerous, hysterical bloviating….
I’ll be surprised if there is not an attempt on a non-leftist SCOTUS Justice before the year ends.
As for a hypothetical Presidential decision that exposes the real fault line here, consider what the President must do if a political opponent is allied to, say, Hezbollah, and concrete information suggests her or she is involved in a terrorist attack expected to be lethal to innocent citizens? Although arrest and detention are the normal course of action, if the threat is imminent and his or her involvement convincing, could the President order a droning attack or Seal Team 6? Of course. As the Court says, context matters.
This hypothetical is more likely to happen in a Hollywood movie than in Real Life. But the Pale/Hamas hysteria recently unleashed suggests no, maybe it’s not.
If the Presidents men and women are wrong about the Intel, and the drone assassination occurs, one can imagine that an impeachment of the President would probably occur.
Astute readers will notice that my hypothetical is merely an application of the Trolley problem in applied ethics.
I believe that before it was christened that, it was the StarTrek-original series that gave us the Kubiyashi Test given at Starfleet Academy (or was it in an instalment in the filed feature movies later on?). A character testing no-win situation.
Which Captain Kirk adroitly solves by changing the programmed simulation because “I hate to loose.” But perhaps I’m wrong and this was merely the first mass popularisation of a Trolly problem….
What Paul in Boston said, which means—as should have been clear from the outset—that the Democrats are projecting AGAIN.
That it’s Sotomayor pushing the LIE—and the implicit THREAT on Trump’s life—FROM THE BENCH of the highest court in the land is a clear indication of the direction things are going…
…meaning that the contempt for the Law and for the Truth by the uber-politicized Left-wing judges will only accelerate.
Another guardrail smashed to smithereens by the usual suspects…
File under: Her Master’s voice
“Sotomayor’s dissent was aimed at inciting panic ”
Yes. As usual.
I’d add that this event — the SCOTUS immunity ruling — is perfect for the Left to incite panic over TWO items, which they want to basically destroy: Trump and our SCOTUS.
Remember, the Left want to pack or otherwise destroy the SCOTUS.
Plus, there’s ongoing noise about reigning conservative Justices in, with special restrictions (– which the left don’t ever abide, of course!).
EG: gifts, travel, free speech! How dare them!!
One of the primary duties of POTUS is to take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. Murder is illegal in every state. An assassination is murder. Thus, it would be a case that has no immunity for a POTUS.
The POTUS has a legal team that he consults continually in order to faithfully execute the law, and to be sure he’s not breaking the law. It’s my understanding that Trump was following the advice of John Eastman, a noted constitutional authority, in trying to stop the counting of the electors in 2021. Trump believed he was within the law. For providing an unpopular legal (and possibly incorrect) opinion, John Eastman has been indicted in Georgia and Arizona. He also faces disbarment proceedings in California. He’s being punished for providing his legal opinion to Trump.
Since legal opinions often differ (as we see in the SCOTUS rulings), we need to maintain our sanity and not jump to incredible conclusions about them. The Dems will constantly do this in order to use fear to get people to do what they want them to.
Their main boogeymen are:
1. Climate change.
2. Abortion rights.
3. Systemic racism.
4. Donald Trump is Hitler.
That’s what they do. It’s all they’ve got.
Presidential Immunity: Trump v. US – ‘A Bad Day for Special Counsel Jack Smith’ by Techno Fog
That BBC clown is actually writing what he hopes someone does to Farage, LePen, AND POTUS Trump.
He just picked the most obvious target for his fascism cloaked in “our democracy” language.
Eastmans opinion was entirely proper, the dems using the subterfuge of the ballot avalanche committed fraud, from one of the other links a lawfare expert, james baker is right on continuing the fraud, through massive balloting, ungeared to any safeguards, and labeling any criticism as dezinforma,
about 20 years ago, when Charlie Brooker was at the Guardian he had a similar gambit about W, the designated bete noire,
Just keep in mind how useful a hyperbolic twist on the SC ruling can be to divert attention away from last Thursday’s Biden Bomb!
The real SHTF will be when Trump is elected, sends the DOJ after the Biden Crime Family, and they try to claim immunity! I doubt that influence peddling to China can be spun as a Presidents “Core Constitutional Responsibilities”!
like thanos said of the collector ‘lying must be like breathing for you’
they wanted the decision to come down on thursday to hide the impact, of the debate,
SCOTUS shouldn’t be accepting any free anything, nor book deals, nor, without compensation to the government for time and travel, speeches. It is called ethics. Doing the right thing when it is not illegal to do otherwise.
KJV 1 Thessalonians 5:22 — Abstain from all appearance of evil.
Chases Eagles: “It is called ethics. Doing the right thing when it is not illegal to do otherwise.”
One part of me agrees with this, but details matter. Who decides what the “right thing” is, or in this context, what is not a wrong thing? Plush vacations, but where no work or legal effort was involved, a pure gift? That might be suspect, but not related to any past or current cases?? Where is the distinction here to gifting stock to your grandchildren, etc.?
If they write a book (without receiving an advance and the income is only from actual sales) then we should not be restricting their own right to free speech. Or spoken speech, especially if the topic is generic and general, as they are considered our highest legal authorities.
Part of what would make your view more viable is if they were paid 3 or 4 times their current level, to better match what such legal talent* might garner in the private sector. Yes, public service, etc., but to remove or constrain receiving other sources of income would be more tenantable when their income avoids the need to obtain “more”. Plus the more they make, the more they have left over to invest “somewhere”, which has its own complications.
Related to that, and for ALL of the major federal elected, appointed, or confirmed positions, we ought to demand greater public detail about their other income sources (plus spouses and possibly adult children in some cases), not the broad categories currently allowed. But they should be allowed to make investments, etc., as any of us can, except for them they would have to publish their intention to do so one or two weeks (or 3 to 5 days? or?) prior, to avoid even the appearance of insider trading, etc. Stronger restrictions on former public servants entering the revolving door of regulating agencies and regulated entities would be a plus for this goal, as well. [Well, two days until July 4th, so we can pretend that our HS history and civics classes were / are still true.]
*with 3 exceptions?
Re miguel cervantes on Democrat Party ballot stuffing. Accountant Joseph Fried published a calm book on the 2020 election vote rigging fraud.
In his current column at American Thinker, he displays True The Vote’s estimates of illegally trafficked ballots in five swing states, using the tracking methods explained in the film “2000 Mules.”
The highest number of “Mules” is over 1,000 with average number of drop box visits being 50 per Mule. In Pennsylvania.
I’m quite astonished at the scale of voting corruption involved in 2020s election by these numbers.
I’m buying his book on it.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/07/how_tds_destroyed_the_democrats.html
If Donald Trump is elected president, the finish line for federal prosecutors is Inauguration Day, not Election Day, people familiar with the discussions said…
The plot thickens.
Re: Ethics I don’t care. Legal does not mean ethical. Would anyone buy their book if not for their job?
In the defense contractor biz you can’t even give a 2LT a free doughnut in a meeting without an ethics violation.
@ Neo > “The president does not have the constitutional authority to murder his rivals, nor would that be an official act of any sort even if he used the military to do it”
Nor would the honest military obey such an order:
https://redstate.com/wardclark/2024/07/02/armys-elite-delta-force-troopers-assassination-of-political-opponents-an-unlawful-order-n2176290
I can’t answer for Austin & Milley & the like under Biden Inc.
Nothing says defending American security like the opinion of a newsblabber from Her Majesty’s Government!
Sotomayor and her ‘friends” on the court have disqualified themselves with their wild and inaccurate accusations. She, Jackson and Kagan should be removed for this alone.
I’m betting on stupid and venal!
The “Wise Lantina” is a useful idiot
Aesopfan, wrt:
Neo > “The president does not have the constitutional authority to murder his rivals, nor would that be an official act of any sort even if he used the military to do it”
Nor would the honest military obey such an order.
…
I can’t answer for Austin & Milley & the like under Biden Inc.
.
Oh I can. Milley, for one, was fine with warning China — CHINA!!! — of any plans that Trump may have presented to thwart China’s crap.
THAT speaks loudly, clearly!
Sadly, I am sure that Austin and Milley are NOT the last of the anti-American military leaders which Obama and Biden promoted, for their anti-American agenda!