4 ms·

EDIT: since you edited your post after I responded, I'll try to respond to your edit. It is Biden who believes he's above the law. He has consistently bragged

EDIT: since you edited your post after I responded, I'll try to respond to your edit. It is Biden who believes he's above the law. He has consistently bragged about it, for example, in flouting decisions saying he has no authority to forgive student loans. It is Biden who is not following the law here. I'm sure this will be appealed, and maybe in a few years, if we're lucky, the law will be made clearer.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Biden who believes he's above the law. He has consistently bragged about it, for example, in flouting decisions saying he has no authority to forgive student loans. Cool, then ding him. Presidential authority is absolutely uncomfortably vague. But this expands it; Cannon is saying, in essence, a prosecutor who the President can order around should be bringing this case. Right now, Biden is above the law. He could declare martial law in D.C., field promote his son and then—as commander in chief—order him to execute the conservative members of the Supreme Court, pardon his son, pardon himself, resign and—under current law—be absolutely immune. Under current law, the President is more powerful than Rome’s consuls ever were [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senatus_consultum_ultimum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senatus_consultum_ultimum
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  > Right now, Biden is above the law. He could declare martial law in D.C., field promote his son and then—as commander in chief—order him to execute the conservative members of the Supreme Court, pardon his son, pardon himself, resign and—under current law—be absolutely immune. Not as I understand the Supreme Court decision. Ordering the execution of 6 members of the Supreme Court is not within the scope of his office. You'd have to prove it - there's a presumption that his actions are within scope - but it's not absolute. (For stuff that is within the scope of the powers of his office, there is absolute immunity.)
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Ordering the execution of 6 members of the Supreme Court is not within the scope of his office Commander in Chief is a core Constitutional duty, and one of the most-expansively interpreted ones at that. Of course, if someone did that the rules wouldn’t matter. And they wouldn’t follow up by resigning. But it’s illustrative of how silly the framework is.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      Commander in Chief, yes. Declaring martial law, that's within precedent. But... Ordering the killing of Supreme Court justices is not part of the powers of the Commander in Chief! And the fact that people are acting like it could be is evidence of how silly the discussion about the framework has gotten.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Ordering the killing of Supreme Court justices is not part of the powers of the Commander in Chief We’ve extrajudicially liquidated Americans overseas before. Why isn’t this a power of the Commander in Chief? What if they aren’t SCOTUS, but federal judges suspected of a terrorist plot? State judge? Where do we draw the line? (We’ve executed Americans extrajudicially and under Article I powers.) > that people are acting like it could be Nobody is. I’m not arguing that absurdity is a likelihood that can be defended against with laws. My point is there is no good source for what constitutes an official act. EDIT: You are arguing in good faith and shouldn’t be getting downvoted.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki Was this an official act? The President of the United States ordered the military to kill an American citizen who had not been convicted of a crime, with the "due process" being a DOJ memo. What would make a hit on SCOTUS any different? Both involve the President ordering the armed forces in his official capacity as Commander in Chief to kill an American citizen without trial. The only difference would be motive, and the Trump v. United States opinion explicitly states courts cannot consider it!
- tomohawk 2y ago
  Please take your fear mongering elsewhere.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > fear mongering Nobody is suggesting this is realistic. If you’re going to do what I described, you go all the way and hold the Congress at gunpoint. (That’s been a risk we’ve trusted in the Presidency since at least the New Deal, and nobody in power seems unhappy about it.) What we’re asking is whether it would be legal. Arguing ad absurdum has a long tradition in law. Usually it’s constrained to academia by the “cases and controversies” clause, but SCOTUS is no longer narrowly deciding cases. (“Decision for the ages” and the Warren court.) It’s used to uncover internal inconsistency. (Also, “FUD” isn’t an argument.)
rootusrootus 2y ago
As luck would have it, Biden is in the clear now even if he is, as you suggest, breaking the law. He has absolute immunity.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Biden who believes he's above the law. He has consistently bragged about it, for example, in flouting decisions saying he has no authority to forgive student loans. Cool, then ding him. Presidential authority is absolutely uncomfortably vague. But this expands it; Cannon is saying, in essence, a prosecutor who the President can order around should be bringing this case. Right now, Biden is above the law. He could declare martial law in D.C., field promote his son and then—as commander in chief—order him to execute the conservative members of the Supreme Court, pardon his son, pardon himself, resign and—under current law—be absolutely immune. Under current law, the President is more powerful than Rome’s consuls ever were [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senatus_consultum_ultimum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senatus_consultum_ultimum

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
> Right now, Biden is above the law. He could declare martial law in D.C., field promote his son and then—as commander in chief—order him to execute the conservative members of the Supreme Court, pardon his son, pardon himself, resign and—under current law—be absolutely immune. Not as I understand the Supreme Court decision. Ordering the execution of 6 members of the Supreme Court is not within the scope of his office. You'd have to prove it - there's a presumption that his actions are within scope - but it's not absolute. (For stuff that is within the scope of the powers of his office, there is absolute immunity.)
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Ordering the execution of 6 members of the Supreme Court is not within the scope of his office Commander in Chief is a core Constitutional duty, and one of the most-expansively interpreted ones at that. Of course, if someone did that the rules wouldn’t matter. And they wouldn’t follow up by resigning. But it’s illustrative of how silly the framework is.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Commander in Chief, yes. Declaring martial law, that's within precedent. But... Ordering the killing of Supreme Court justices is not part of the powers of the Commander in Chief! And the fact that people are acting like it could be is evidence of how silly the discussion about the framework has gotten.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Ordering the killing of Supreme Court justices is not part of the powers of the Commander in Chief We’ve extrajudicially liquidated Americans overseas before. Why isn’t this a power of the Commander in Chief? What if they aren’t SCOTUS, but federal judges suspected of a terrorist plot? State judge? Where do we draw the line? (We’ve executed Americans extrajudicially and under Article I powers.) > that people are acting like it could be Nobody is. I’m not arguing that absurdity is a likelihood that can be defended against with laws. My point is there is no good source for what constitutes an official act. EDIT: You are arguing in good faith and shouldn’t be getting downvoted.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki Was this an official act? The President of the United States ordered the military to kill an American citizen who had not been convicted of a crime, with the "due process" being a DOJ memo. What would make a hit on SCOTUS any different? Both involve the President ordering the armed forces in his official capacity as Commander in Chief to kill an American citizen without trial. The only difference would be motive, and the Trump v. United States opinion explicitly states courts cannot consider it!
tomohawk 2y ago
Please take your fear mongering elsewhere.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > fear mongering Nobody is suggesting this is realistic. If you’re going to do what I described, you go all the way and hold the Congress at gunpoint. (That’s been a risk we’ve trusted in the Presidency since at least the New Deal, and nobody in power seems unhappy about it.) What we’re asking is whether it would be legal. Arguing ad absurdum has a long tradition in law. Usually it’s constrained to academia by the “cases and controversies” clause, but SCOTUS is no longer narrowly deciding cases. (“Decision for the ages” and the Warren court.) It’s used to uncover internal inconsistency. (Also, “FUD” isn’t an argument.)

rootusrootus 2y ago

As luck would have it, Biden is in the clear now even if he is, as you suggest, breaking the law. He has absolute immunity.