How do we fix the Supreme Court decision?

Put people on the supreme court who will do the right thing.

Vote for Biden come November!!! Won’t fix everything, but will remove one disruption from the equation. If you pay attention, everything 45 is doing is what he accuses Biden of doing because that deflects the heat off of himself. He has already declared that he will be assassinating Pres Biden a well as Dr Jill when he goes back in office. He wants to off Liz Cheney as well. Personally, I don’t plan on being complicit in his murder plan!!! For the life of me, I can’t figure out what the USA ever did to him other than allow him to get rich while looking the other way.

^^Good luck with that.

@Blackwater_Park Replacing members of the court won’t be enough. You would then need to bring a case before the court for them to rule on. Not easy, but possible.
#Roe.

Sorry to be that guy, but there is no viable solution.
Just like people in the past had to accept that brutal reality, you all will accept this brutal reality.

Doesn’t feel good, does it?

Can’t be fixed but you can feel great once Democrats win and get the White House again this November. Trump and those who think he’ll actually win are delusional. Is this in Social? Yes. Their pathetic balls are cooked.

If you can load this Heather Cox Richardson talk, it points to what we can do as a people.

https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/videos/1007439607634452

I have to laugh at y’all who say it can’t be fixed. Of course it can. You have more power than you think. Roe is hard because people are divided on the issue, this last ruling is not so much the case.

@Blackwater_Park Tell us then – how does a Supreme Court ruling be fixed?

^^Congress, Senate, WH majority Dems.

Vote out every single mofo who supports the decision, put pressure on politicians, make calls etc etc. Vote vote vote… Enough people doing this over time and change is guaranteed. Politics is a consumer-driven enterprise. That last decision is detested by both the right and left. It’s easy to fix, just have to get people on the same team. That’s the hard part.

The recourse that exists within the Constitution is to amend the Constitution. Congress can pass an amendment narrowly defining protected, official acts, and the states can ratify it, and the courts won’t be able to say shit. Unless they figure out how to declare constitutional amendments unconstitutional, in which case you’ve got to start considering some “destructive of these ends” options.

If its legal now to give gifts to the Supreme Court Justices then… let the bidding process begin.

@Smashley The decision the SCOTUS just made was directly from the Constitution and you folks are lathered about it. But think about what you are suggesting: that every POTUS should be under the thundercloud of lawsuits for any and all decisions he/she makes. Again, that would open Barack Obama open to all sorts of lawsuits for using drones against American citizens. It could open Biden up to being arrested as a murderer for all the people that have been killed by illegal immigrants he allowed into and moved around in the country. The list is endless. And all it would take is for someone to bring a lawsuit against them really just because they don’t like them. It could break them after they are out of office or even while they are in office. That is what you are all screaming for.

Dred Scott was within the Constitution too, but a few people were lathered about it.

Let me guess: let’s goalpost yet again.

Yep. And the system worked. Scott got overturned. It might be that some place in the distant future, this decision gets overturned as well. Not likely, but maybe…if the left gets into power. This decision cited case after case where presidential immunity was claimed and was overruled.

The history of this issue goes all the way back in our history. Thomas Jefferson claimed immunity when his VP was under attack. Richard Nixon claimed immunity. Bill Clinton claimed immunity. And in all these cases it was overruled. The cases were looked at exactly as this SCOTUS decision dictated they needed to be looked at: did the action of the POTUS for which they are claiming immunity fall within the duties of their office?

Their decision is not what the crazy leftist media is saying. It isn’t blanket immunity for any and all actions. It isn’t blanket immunity for everything they’ve ever done in their lives. It isn’t blanket immunity for some crazy scenario where they get to kill someone and get away with it. I suggest you read the decision and see what they are saying and why they are saying it.

You’re not repealing the 2nd. Many will fight you on that including me

So why did the court weigh in this time? They could have skipped it, and left the law as it stands, but chose a convoluted workaround that will protect a man who tried to overthrow the government.

@Blackwater_Park – you can be wrong. I’m ok with that. You also don’t need a fucked up amendment like that to protect reasonable firearm ownership. I’d be ok with a sensible plan, instead of an insane one,

Nothing wrong with the 2nd but there are some things wrong with gun “culture”

@Smashley The SCOTUS deals with cases that make their way to them. Rarely do they take a case that comes directly to them. Usually it has to go through courts, appeals courts, district courts, and finally the SCOTUS. This case was no exception. They didn’t change any law or even any interpretation of law. This case was brought by Trump as his claim of immunity in the cases being brought against him. What the SCOTUS found was that the courts had not once considered if the actions he was involved with were part of his official duties. In other words the lower courts were trying to change the law and to overthrow the government. The SCOTUS didn’t weigh in on the issue of whether what Trump was accused of was or wasn’t part of his official duties. They refused to do so since none of the lower courts had bothered. They gave it back to those courts to do what they were supposed to do in the first place. That performance (from the lower courts) is what you get with a left-wing court…activist cowboy actions that don’t care about the law.

If people read SCOTUS opinions they may better understand what the court does and why. Reading responses here suggest a lot of confusion and getting info from mainstream press. That is always a mistake as far as I’m concerned.

@Blackwater_Park – “shall not be abridged” is just too far for gun ownership. People can, and do, argue and instate very unreasonable gun laws, and the culture flows out of it.

@seawulf575 – it’s an interpretation, and I hope you’re right. It seems like we just need another Dershowitz moment to argue that it is not possible for a President to not act in an official capacity because even their private acts must be to serve themselves, which is of vital importance to the nation, and thereby official.

It’s hard to imagine the Founding Fathers thinking it’s okay for a President to be able to do anything and remain unchecked by laws.

Obama did not use drones against American citizens @seawulf575!! Lol! Prove it!

@Dutchess_III – in the words of a former secretary of defense: that’s not entirely accurate.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-panetta-constitutional-challenge-killing-three-us-citizens?redirect=targetedkillings

@Dutchess_III Here are some reports of it:

https://theworld.org/stories/2016/07/30/if-obama-apologized-1-civilian-drone-victim-every-day-it-would-take-him-3-years

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/obama-to-disclose-how-many-civilians-died-in-u-s-drone-attacks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki

I particularly liked the last one where the WH Press secretary blamed the father for not being responsible enough to keep his son out of the way of Obama’s drones.

But he is now immune. He could have done it in Chicago, as a result of a bribe, to attempt to secure a third term and he would still be immune.

@Smashley Except he doesn’t have the total immunity you are all screaming about. That’s what I’ve been trying to make everyone understand. Did you read the majority decision? I’ve started it and am about halfway through. It is 118 pages long. But the summary pretty much says it all. It does cite, throughout the decision, a number of cases where a POTUS claimed immunity and it was found to not exist for them in the specific case. So no, it isn’t about total immunity. What it IS about is making the lower courts consider immunity before taking on half-baked “get him!” cases.

If it’s part of his “core authority” enumerated within the constitution – like for instance, conducting the military, he is now absolutely and specifically immune. Also, if it can be argued that to prosecute for a thing would impose any restriction at all upon his constitutional authority, he is also immune. Obama is immune for anything he did directing the military, and god help us, so is every other president.

And you dodged the idea that Trump would use the same legal argument Dershowitz made to the Senate during impeachment, that even illegal, purely self-serving acts must be protected because protecting and advancing the person, when that person is president, must, in the mind of the president, be for the good of the country, and therefore protected.

@Smashley Go read the decision. Here, I’ll help:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-supreme-court-decision-on-trump-and-presidential-immunity

Their argument is not the same as Dershowitz. They, in fact, point to several issues throughout our history where a POTUS claimed immunity because of official acts but they weren’t. Some were a stretch. But the example would be Nixon, trying to hide the secret tapes. Recording everything that goes on in the Oval Office leads to talking about illegal activities he did, even while POTUS. The SCOTUS noted that usually recordings and communications of a POTUS would be protected, and should be given that benefit of the doubt, in that case, they weren’t. Bill Clinton tried avoiding the Paula Jones SA lawsuit by claiming presidential immunity since he was POTUS by that time. Unfortunately, again, immunity wasn’t acknowledged because all the actions involved in the case happened when he was still governor of Arkansas.

It isn’t blanket immunity. It isn’t a get out of jail free card for a POTUS to do whatever they want. What it is, though, is a clarification that if someone wants to sue a POTUS or charge them with some crime committed when they were POTUS, the court has to consider the immunity aspect of the job. Was the supposed crime a part of what could be looked at as the job of the POTUS? In the J6 case, which is what brought this to the SCOTUS, Judge Chutkan didn’t even bother to look at the immunity issue. She just plowed ahead with the “get Trump” attitude. When he appealed the immunity, she ignored it and didn’t look at it even then. It went to the appeals court and they didn’t look at it either. That is how it gets to the SCOTUS. And the SCOTUS didn’t weigh in on whether his actions were or weren’t a part of his duties as POTUS…they identified that immunity for POTUS does apply in many cases, but not all; they identified that the courts so far in this case hadn’t considered that at all, and they felt it was up to those courts to determine if they were or weren’t part of the job and therefore immune.

I’m not saying he made the Dershowitz argument. Read what you’re responding to, it’s a few paragraphs, I question your ability to parse a complete SC decision for us. I’m saying the door is wide open a similar argument now, because the standard for criminal immunity now only requires the slimmest of ties to the vague and expansive powers granted the constitution.

Previous immunity was discussed for civil litigation, which has a lower threshold and fewer protections from abuse. In the Clinton example you’re talking about a governor, not a president

No ruling had ever held that a president has blanket immunity from criminal prosecution. When Trump argued it, the courts rightly shot it down, which is proper. You’re saying they should have evaluated the Trumps claims on its merits, when it was not based in legal reality? The supremes invented a new protection, and then remanded the case for evaluation on its merits. The fucked up thing is that this case isn’t even through with trashing the balance of powers. Next we get to find out what it sounds like to argue that attempting a coup is a part of presidential core authority,

@Smashley I have to distill down the decision since so many refuse to actually read it themselves. They would rather get their information from lefty news outlets who “parse a complete SC decision” for them. I’m urging you to read the decision for yourself.

All I have seen so far is people swearing up and down that this decision gives the POTUS blanket immunity to do whatever they want to do. But I have at least read a good chunk of the decision and don’t see that whatsoever. That is, however, a lefty talking point so it is echoed endlessly. You said it yourself here, though you don’t realize it: everything I have been saying about this decision is spot on. No ruling has ever held that the POTUS has blanket immunity from criminal prosecution. This is 100% true and this decision doesn’t either…at least not for actions taken outside the duties of the office. The courts have indeed shot down Trump’s claims of immunity. But what the SCOTUS found in their decisions is that not once did they ever evaluate if his actions were or weren’t part of the duties of his office. Without that evaluation, they are ignoring immunity altogether…taking it away for all acts, official or unofficial. The SCOTUS did not say Trump’s actions were covered by immunity. What they did say is that no evaluation has been done and that is way wrong.

Presidential immunity for official acts (those done for the performance of normal duties) has always existed. But imagine if someone brought the lawsuit against Obama for killing Americans in drone strikes? Would that be fair? And if they did and the court entirely ignored even entertaining the question of immunity, just assumed it didn’t matter, that he didn’t have immunity, would that be fair? The answers are simple: no, it would not be fair. It would put a precedent on the POTUS position that would mean any decision he made could be twisted and used against him later on. It would effectively hobble the POTUS entirely.

But you admit there is 100% criminal immunity now for duties that can be argued to be within those powers specified by the constitution.

Directing the military is a specifically articulated power, granted by the constitution.

Therefore the president can direct the military to break the law, and cannot be held accountable for it.

The members of the military may not be obligated to follow such orders, but if they do, the president may shield them from prosecution through his power to pardon, and he may offer this as an assurance to wary members of the military. Again, pardoning is a constitutional power, so selling a pardon cannot be prosecuted either.

The president would not even have to face a jury for such crimes, because the prosecution cannot be brought at all. This is the minimum power his unaccountable, lifetime tenured justices have given him. If he can argue other powers are his, or that to prosecute other crimes would infringe on the powers that could be his, he can go even further.

We have already witnessed Trump use a specific argument before the senate that breaking the law to get re-elected cannot be a violation of his duty to defend the constitution if he believes it will help get him re-elected, because a president must believe that getting himself re-elected is in the best interest of the country, no matter what. (L’etat, c’est moi?) How can you be so non-chalant about the backwards arguments to come in this case?

Explain how the decision means a president cannot order the military to round citizens up and put them in internment camps, or kill political rivals?

@Smashley I’ve always admitted there is 100% criminal immunity for actions taken in performance of the office. I’ve even given examples. Obama using drones to kill Americans is a perfect one. You have never heard me say that killing Americans is right, but you have heard me say that given immunity in the office there isn’t much you can do. It wasn’t proven he was targeting the Americans, just that they got killed when he was going drone crazy going after terrorists. But also, not all actions are covered by that immunity. If it had come out that Obama had ordered hits on Americans because he didn’t like them or felt they were threatening his political career, that would not have been actions in performance of his office.

But that is how it has been forever. The SCOTUS ruling in this case just said that when charging or trying a POTUS for something they did while in office, the court has to consider that immunity. They cannot discount it because they want to.

As for your claim of what Trump said, please cite a source, preferably one that shows a video of Trump saying it. Because this is the crux of the issue. The media throws out a spin on things all the time. Trump says something like it is part of the duty of the POTUS to ensure free and honest elections. He is right. But the media says “Trump says he can use the power of the office to make the election results what he wants.” which isn’t what he said at all. But once the talking point is put out there, the media reports it over and over and over until everyone believes he actually said it. In this case I have, numerous time, shown how the POTUS could not use the military legally. It would not be covered by immunity. But I will be honest, what you are describing is something far closer to what the Dems have done than what any Repub, Trump included, has done.

Just grant me that I’m not a simp, and I do try to carefully parse the news of the day, hear multiple sides, put it in context, and draw my own conclusions. I’m well aware of what the media is capable of, though, as a whole, journalism is still essential to a functioning democracy.

The argument was made by Alan Dershowitz, on behalf of Trump, who obviously couldn’t have formulated such legal wizardry himself. However, as his representative, he made such an argument to Congress. https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-elections-politics-trump-impeachment-612e3103f79f3efaeb34971c32340d71 But by all means, listen to it yourself. I was absolutely stunned when he made the argument, which he has since attempted to walk back, but listen to the plain words and tell me that’s not what he said. It’s not the complete argument that can be used to protect the president from criminal prosecution, under the new paradigm, but the through line is that the act of using the office to self-serve is, legally speaking, in the interest of the country, and thus no argument of intent can be built within a prosecution.

Bottom line: If official acts are immune, we only need a thin argument that actions fall under the vague and expansive powers within Article II to be forever immune. Therefore, a sitting president can tell the military to purge all members of the military who aren’t with the program, and pardon them before the fact, and not face any consequence two thirds of the senate aren’t willing to bring.

I don’t consider you a simp at all. You are generally very level headed. In this case, you are giving me a source that shows that Dershowitz (not Trump) said something and the media went crazy. Just like they always do. What he said could be seen as something it was not meant to be. And it was not said in reference to anything Trump is being looked at today. It was in reference to the impeachment the Dems fabricated against Trump for his “quid pro quo” phone call with Zelenskyy in Ukraine.

The claim was that he practically begged Zelenskyy to investigate Biden is a slimy effort to target his chief political opponent. What he was talking about is that if the POTUS takes an action as part of his duties AND it helps his re-election it should not be an impeachable offense. In the case of the phone call and the impeachment, the Dems acted on a single whistleblower’s report, a whistleblower who they fought hard to keep anonymous. And that report was quickly shown to be false when Trump released the transcript of the phone call. The report said Trump asked Zelenskyy 8 times to investigate Biden for corruption and that he threatened to withhold aid if he didn’t do it. The transcript shows that was made up entirely. In the phone call he only said the name “Biden” twice and once was definitely about Hunter Biden in reference to the corruption in Ukraine. He never mentioned aid to Ukraine at all. In fact, as the Dems blew this up, Zelenskyy was interviewed and he said he never felt threatened by Trump and knew nothing of aid being delayed or withheld.

So Trump was dealing with a foreign leader (a duty of the POTUS), to discuss corruption in that leader’s country to which we are sending aid. He has to get a good feeling that the aid will be used well and not to further corruption (another duty of the POTUS). And if there does seem to be corruption (which seemed to be getting addressed at the time of the phone call) the POTUS would have the duty to bring delay the aid and bring the issue back to Congress. This last part didn’t have to happen. The Dems tried claiming the phone call was to block a political rival, yet Biden was barely in the running at the time the claim was being made.

It is interesting though, on that impeachment, that the Dems were fighting so hard to build an impeachment case against Trump and yet Joe Biden bragged about doing exactly what they accused Trump of doing and he implicated Obama as well. The quid pro quo was there, the threat to withhold aid that Congress had promised…everything except the political rival. However it should be noted that the state prosecutor he wanted fired was the one looking into Burisma and after he got the guy fired they hired Hunter onto the board when he had no experience at all in the energy business.

But that is all past. I still recommend every person goes to read the SCOTUS ruling. It will stop a lot of the fearmongering that is going on about it. But meanwhile, the Executive Branch is bringing all sorts of lawsuits against Trump, Biden’s chief political rival, that all started after he announced he would be running again in 2024. Even some of the state trials like the Fulton Co. GA case had those “independent” prosecutors meeting with WH counsel, the DOJ, and the J6 committee. Doesn’t that sound like something that should be illegal for a POTUS to do?