10 ms·

What about overthrowing the government? Because that's the "offical" act of the president with today's ruling. Further, it should be noted that the lower cour

What about overthrowing the government? Because that's the "offical" act of the president with today's ruling. Further, it should be noted that the lower court already did exactly what the supreme court remanded back to them. They said "we don't know what sorts of immunity are granted to a president, but if there is any they are not granted, it's overturning an election as is accused in this specific case". The supreme court took up this case specifically to help donald trump and because they couldn't challenge the ruling given they made up their own facts to give the ruling they wanted to give.

rayiner 2y ago
There is a criminal statute for that! https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383. Appropriately titled "rebellion or insurrection." Trump was not charged under that statute.
- i-am-fnord 2y ago
  But if one overthrows the government via official acts, then one enjoys absolute immunity. For example, the president can deem opposition party leaders to be terrorists and then in an official capacity order them to be assassinated by the SEALs. He can grant blanket pardons to everyone involved while he himself enjoys absolute immunity for his official acts. The Senate will never be able to impeach or convict you when you’ve killed off those who would do it. This ruling makes the president a temporary dictator, and it’s reeeeeally easy to go from a temporary dictator to a lifetime one.
  - chii 2y ago
    > deem opposition party leaders to be terrorists why is it so easy to just deem some group of people terrorists, without any evidence presented? And if this is true, why can't biden do it today, and preempt trump from doing it?
    - nmd1 2y ago
      Look up McCarthyism. And Democratic party are known to not want to rock the boat, so to speak.
curt15 2y ago
> What about overthrowing the government? Because that's the "offical" act of the president with today's ruling. The ruling basically says the only way for the case to move forward is to determine what parts of Trump's conduct can be deemed "unofficial".
kcplate 2y ago
Here is a legal brain twister to chew on. Trump probably could not have been charged with insurrection…because he could not overthrow himself. On January 6, he was still the president and represented the government. Disruption of a government proceeding is more appropriate. Had Trump did what he did on January 21st, 2021…you might have a case for insurrection.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
paulddraper 2y ago
> What about overthrowing the government? Overthrowing....the government he was in charge of?
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  It was an unsuccessful attempt. Apparently that's enough for you to be cool with it though.
- beart 2y ago
  Are you implying the president has complete authority over all branches of government?
  - paulddraper 2y ago
    No more than the government has complete authority over me.
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  A self-coup, also called an autocoup (from Spanish autogolpe) or coup from the top, is a form of coup d'état in which a nation's head, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup
tiltowait 2y ago
Doesn’t the ruling say the lower courts have to go back and determine which acts were and were not official?
- 8note 2y ago
  It's strange that they haven't delegated to Congress to write a law specifying which acts are and aren't official, and that without said law, no acts the president does that aren't specifically listed in the constitution are official That would be much more in line with the courts other decisions than asking a court to write the law

rayiner 2y ago

There is a criminal statute for that! https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383. Appropriately titled "rebellion or insurrection." Trump was not charged under that statute.

i-am-fnord 2y ago
But if one overthrows the government via official acts, then one enjoys absolute immunity. For example, the president can deem opposition party leaders to be terrorists and then in an official capacity order them to be assassinated by the SEALs. He can grant blanket pardons to everyone involved while he himself enjoys absolute immunity for his official acts. The Senate will never be able to impeach or convict you when you’ve killed off those who would do it. This ruling makes the president a temporary dictator, and it’s reeeeeally easy to go from a temporary dictator to a lifetime one.
- chii 2y ago
  > deem opposition party leaders to be terrorists why is it so easy to just deem some group of people terrorists, without any evidence presented? And if this is true, why can't biden do it today, and preempt trump from doing it?
  - nmd1 2y ago
    Look up McCarthyism. And Democratic party are known to not want to rock the boat, so to speak.

curt15 2y ago

> What about overthrowing the government? Because that's the "offical" act of the president with today's ruling. The ruling basically says the only way for the case to move forward is to determine what parts of Trump's conduct can be deemed "unofficial".

kcplate 2y ago

Here is a legal brain twister to chew on. Trump probably could not have been charged with insurrection…because he could not overthrow himself. On January 6, he was still the president and represented the government. Disruption of a government proceeding is more appropriate. Had Trump did what he did on January 21st, 2021…you might have a case for insurrection.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

paulddraper 2y ago

> What about overthrowing the government? Overthrowing....the government he was in charge of?

DEADMINCE 2y ago
It was an unsuccessful attempt. Apparently that's enough for you to be cool with it though.
beart 2y ago
Are you implying the president has complete authority over all branches of government?
- paulddraper 2y ago
  No more than the government has complete authority over me.
pseudalopex 2y ago
A self-coup, also called an autocoup (from Spanish autogolpe) or coup from the top, is a form of coup d'état in which a nation's head, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup

tiltowait 2y ago

Doesn’t the ruling say the lower courts have to go back and determine which acts were and were not official?

8note 2y ago
It's strange that they haven't delegated to Congress to write a law specifying which acts are and aren't official, and that without said law, no acts the president does that aren't specifically listed in the constitution are official That would be much more in line with the courts other decisions than asking a court to write the law