It could take months for the justices to issue an opinion. If they rule that the election case can go forward, Trump could be on trial shortly before the November presidential election.

  • billbasher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is insane that it’s even being considered. If they rule presidents have absolute immunity then Joe Biden could just throw Trump in jail and not have to answer for it, which I would not want any president to have the power to do

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      9 months ago

      They’re going to stall the decision until after the election in order to torpedo the case against Trump while also denying Biden the power.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Honestly? If they rule Trump has absolute immunity, Biden should just order seal team six to take him out on the spot, since it would be entirely legal. But he most definitely won’t.

      uUuUu wE Don’T wANt to Be thE oNes tO CReaTe a baD pReCEdeNt you stupid political fucks he is a racist psychopathic narcissist rapist mobster who doesn’t give a fuck about anything but himself. Dude has openly fucking promised to enact extreme, politically motivated retaliatory prosecution - including flagrant misuse of the DoJ and exploitation of their ongoing corruption of the judicial branch - on anyone who’s wronged him, just to start. And then there’s his plans for education. And immigration. And international policy. And so on.

      When someone repeatedly and consistently tells you exactly who they fucking are in horrifying detail, you really should believe them.

      • billbasher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Well said. I agree Biden would probably do nothing in that case. I also agree with everything you said. Unfortunately the people we want to rule, who stick to the rule of law and are focused on the betterment of citizens, always lose to the people who step outside the law and try to cling to power. I don’t think those people can be dealt within the confines of the law generally. Unless you mess up so bad you have 91 indictments. Even then it’s not guaranteed

    • chakan2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Than and the ensuing civil war is the only way we get out from under the train wreck of the US government.

      Biden doesn’t have the balls to pull that trigger though. Trump does though.

      • SuiXi3D@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Regardless of who wins that civil war, China or Russia will control the country afterwards. We, the people, lose regardless.

        • chakan2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          China is going to own us one way or another in the next two decades anyway.

      • billbasher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        There is so much wrong with the US government. I don’t even know what a good solution is but I don’t think Trump is it. We probably need a hard progressive like Bernie or Butigeg

    • pezhore
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      My hope is that they are going to say, of course a president isn’t a god-emperor - and in doing so put to bed the argument for all cases outstanding.

      Right now, there evidently isn’t legal precedence that a president does or does not have blanket immunity for all crimes in perpetuity - we all collectively assumed that (along with a suite of other established practices that are not codified in law).

      Trump thumbed his orange nose at things previously assumed like, “don’t hire your daughter or son-in-law to positions in the Whitehouse” and “Hey, maybe don’t hold foreign aid over a nation state in return for real or imaginary dirt on a political opponent”.

      As sad as it is, we kind of need SCOTUS to make a determination here, as Congress didn’t pass laws after January 6th to specifically prohibit that activity.

      • billbasher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        “Section 3

        No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

        This is quite clear. Legal precedence for immunity is denied when you swear an oath to defend the constitution, of which an oath to not do anything insurrection related is apart