Quote (Goomshill @ Jul 2 2024 08:04am)
I mean moving beyond the part where SCOTUS just ruled basically exactly what I said on this subject when it first came up, I'd like to elaborate on the silly points of it
The whole point of impeachment existing is to be the safety valve for an executive run amok. The founding fathers never considered anything about personal criminal liability because 1) you assume the president to be the most trusted person, after the country votes to say exactly that and 2) it does not matter to the balance of political power. Locking up political opponents isn't supposed to be a way to move the dial, impeachment is. And if a president gets impeached, why should we care about whether they go to prison or not? They're out of power. Its one man. The whole idea that a deranged president could 'order seal team six to kill a rival', an example that sotomayor unironically used in her tantrum, is profoundly short sighted. Why all this myopic focus on personal political fortunes? A president carries the nuclear football, he could do a lot god damned worse than killing one person. He could easily start a war. We're supposed to impeach presidents before they reach that point, and if they are starting a war but the representatives of the majority of the people of the country support that president and won't impeach him, then that's just a democratic argument for war. That's a consequence of being a representative democracy, electing someone with the power to start wars, electing people with the power to stop it, and both branches aligning means the people have spoken.
And besides the paradox of a sitting president in charged of executing the laws being in charge of enforcing those laws against himself, its also just violating the separation of powers. Any court trying to declare criminal the exercise of official power by a president is de facto usurping those powers, because the court has now instituted itself as an the arbiter of how those powers are used. It has taken those powers out of the president's hands and given it to themselves. Likewise the court cannot possibly judge the counselling or motives of a president, because then it has become arbiter of the president's very deliberative process, the court deciding how the president is allowed to think, the values he must hold, the choices he can't even consider. At that point they're not just usurping the president's powers, they're taking the whole office
What really stuck out about this ruling is how three liberal justices would be willing to embrace some absolutely looney tunes unworkable political theory just because it serves partisan interests and then disrespect the court in their bitter dissent- even when it flies completely at odds with their supposed judicial philosophies of deference and unaccountability for the exercise of executive powers that they've shown for decades. How can you argue Obama could refuse to see immigration laws faithfully executed and nobody can challenge him on it? It shows the schizophrenia of a judiciary not rooted in any coherent philosophy. They'll expand the power of the executive to act unilaterally and unaccountably at every turn, then say that when democratic radicals try to persecute Trump for naked political ambitions that the president can't take a piss unless nine justices hold his dick.
I think Sotomayor recognizes the gravity of the decision as it relates to the defendant, an evil man who as president attempted a coup, which included sending a mob to the Capitol while the election was being certified.
But that aside, it's weird to me when people so easily dismiss the extreme scenarios. If the president orders a military unit to kill a political opponent in America, and those members of the military carry out the illegal orders, he is immune from prosecution. Those military members aren't, but evidence involving the president giving the order, or anything related to that, because his "core power" is involved, is not admissible.
Okay, let's look at a scenario closer to what might happen in reality. If the president were to offer pardons for 20 million dollars, and had people pay him for a pardon, he could not be prosecuted.
I don't know what the right legal opinion is, but these are absurd results. Sarah Isgur(host of Advisory Opinions, an excellent legal podcast with David French) made the point that the Constitution was not created to save the American people from the choices they make electorally. And maybe that's true... if the American people want to elect an evil madman who leads a weirdo personality cult, perhaps it's not right to expect the law to hold him accountable. I honestly don't know how far Trump could go before he would get impeached and convicted by a 52+ Republican-controlled Senate. Sure, the Seal Team 6 assassination would probably make it happen, but the 20 million dollar pardons? I doubt it. Maybe the Constitution
can be a suicide pact.
Goom, what did you think of Amy Coney Barrett's concurrence? Seems to me her view is more rational than the majority opinion.
This post was edited by IceMage on Jul 3 2024 06:08pm