- If he did he’d be prosecuted.
By who, a SCOTUS well within Seal Team Sixing distance?
You claim you read that dissent, but you clearly do not fully understand it.
No no no, you see: Democrats can’t do that because it is… perfectly legal?
And obviously the replacements would vote along republican party lines to make it clear that ruling was specifically for trump.
I don’t know what that person’s problem is but it is pretty clear they are actively arguing in favor of rolling over for the republicans.
By who, a SCOTUS well within Seal Team Sixing distance?
No, the DoJ and the FBI, you know, the entities that prosecute people.
Immunity doesn’t make something legal, it simply puts the person beyond the reach of the law. You’re talking about a commander-in-chief using the military against citizens on US soil. All members of the military are trained to reject unlawful orders.
So first you’re assuming seal team six accepts and carries out an unlawful order. Then the entire DoJ ignores it, or is murdered, until they accept it. Then any legislators or justices that attempt to rein in such power are also assassinated. That’s what is required for your idea to make sense.
Guess what, SCOTUS is irrelevant to the calculation. Assuming you have all those things above, it doesn’t matter if SCOTUS conveys immunity or not. That president is beyond the bounds of the law anyway, with or without immunity.
No, the DoJ and the FBI, you know, the entities that prosecute people.
You mean the entities that Biden, as head of the executive branch, could control as he sees fit (under the “unitary executive” theory underpinning the conservative SCOTUS judges reasoning)?
You’re really, really relying on this notion that the noble bureaucrats won’t comply, and also won’t get replaced with lackeys who would. With Biden as president, you’re likely right – but the power is there for the next person to hold that office to take. Unless Biden does something drastic to force SCOTUS to overturn themselves, anyway.
You’re really, really relying on this notion that the noble bureaucrats won’t comply, and also won’t get replaced with lackeys who would.
No, I’m being realistic. It’s a system of checks and balances, but it only works when you have a sufficient number of good faith actors. When you have a sufficient number of bad faith actors, or those willing to go completely over-the-top in their corruption, the system doesn’t work. Immunity, at the end of the day, is a moot point against that level of bad faith malfeasance, a point you choose to seemingly ignore.
