"Could a president order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?"
January 9, 2024 11:22 AM Subscribe
"Could" is a little ambiguous here, but since the lawyers seem to be answering it as if it meant "Legally could" then I guess there is no problem.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 11:28 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 11:28 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]
"We're going to have to wait until this reaches the Supreme Court, unfortunately. And stop calling me Surely," commented Judge This.
posted by gwint at 11:29 AM on January 9 [28 favorites]
posted by gwint at 11:29 AM on January 9 [28 favorites]
The whole idea of absolute immunity seems farcical to me. Like, would it be ok if Biden unilaterally shipped Trump off to Guantanamo, or any of the hypotheticals that were asked in court? I can imagine a decision that has a pretty far-reaching definition of immunity, but not absolute.
posted by Dip Flash at 11:38 AM on January 9 [10 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 11:38 AM on January 9 [10 favorites]
Taking the hypotheticals even farther, Sauer looked back to history, and raised the possibility of past presidents being charged for some of their most controversial official actions.
“Could George W. Bush be prosecuted for obstruction of an official proceeding for allegedly giving false information to Congress, to induce the nation to go to war in Iraq under false pretenses? … Could President Obama be potentially charged for murder for allegedly authorizing drone strikes targeting US citizens located abroad?”
Seems like a good idea to me.
posted by Ickster at 11:41 AM on January 9 [76 favorites]
“Could George W. Bush be prosecuted for obstruction of an official proceeding for allegedly giving false information to Congress, to induce the nation to go to war in Iraq under false pretenses? … Could President Obama be potentially charged for murder for allegedly authorizing drone strikes targeting US citizens located abroad?”
Seems like a good idea to me.
posted by Ickster at 11:41 AM on January 9 [76 favorites]
This is not entirely theoretical: Roger Stone Discussed Assassinating Dems Before 2020 Election. Roger Stone reportedly said
posted by Nelson at 11:50 AM on January 9 [24 favorites]
Let’s go find Swalwell. It’s time to do it. Then we’ll see how brave the rest of them are. It’s time to do it. It’s either Nadler or Swalwell has to die before the election. They need to get the message. Let’s go find Swalwell and get this over with. I’m just not putting up with this shit anymore.Also in another attempt to kill Trump's enemies, Apparent ‘Swatting’ Incidents Target Judge and Prosecutor in Trump Election Case.
posted by Nelson at 11:50 AM on January 9 [24 favorites]
How's about a rival's 16 year old son ?
This has been the Trumpists' argument all along: they take legitimate/leftwing arguments and turn them inwards.
In theory, there is no difference between Obama signing the killing of a teenage son of a terrorist and Trump signing the killing of Pence. But in practice there is a huge difference. If there is anything positive to be said about the Trump presidency, it will be that we have to think about this, deeply. And it's fucking hard.
Are there any just wars? We have two immensely difficult situations right now. The war in Ukraine seems relatively simple, but Ukraine is a post Soviet nation stuffed to the gills with corruption and oligarchs.
The war between Israel and Palestine may seem simple if you are firmly on one side, but as soon as one adds nuance it becomes frustratingly difficult.
Trumpism exploits those difficulties, in every way possible, and always with grift as the final goal.
posted by mumimor at 11:51 AM on January 9 [44 favorites]
This has been the Trumpists' argument all along: they take legitimate/leftwing arguments and turn them inwards.
In theory, there is no difference between Obama signing the killing of a teenage son of a terrorist and Trump signing the killing of Pence. But in practice there is a huge difference. If there is anything positive to be said about the Trump presidency, it will be that we have to think about this, deeply. And it's fucking hard.
Are there any just wars? We have two immensely difficult situations right now. The war in Ukraine seems relatively simple, but Ukraine is a post Soviet nation stuffed to the gills with corruption and oligarchs.
The war between Israel and Palestine may seem simple if you are firmly on one side, but as soon as one adds nuance it becomes frustratingly difficult.
Trumpism exploits those difficulties, in every way possible, and always with grift as the final goal.
posted by mumimor at 11:51 AM on January 9 [44 favorites]
Maybe I'm crazy but it sounds like there are a few points in the Constitution that might need updated and/or clarified
posted by gottabefunky at 11:56 AM on January 9 [18 favorites]
posted by gottabefunky at 11:56 AM on January 9 [18 favorites]
"The founders intended the president to be without any limitations or subject to judicial restraint as long as 1/3 of the senate was behind them" is certainly going to work. They might give the president the usual qualified immunity standard, then Trump just has to argue that citizens don't have a clearly defined right to vote for president (which the current court is already agreed on), so most of the charges go away.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 11:57 AM on January 9
posted by a robot made out of meat at 11:57 AM on January 9
I'd like that question to be moot. Like it shouldn't be "President orders Seals to kill rival, then Seals kill rival, then President is arrested for having rival killed". It should go "President orders Seals to kill rival, then Seals laugh in his face".
posted by Easy problem of consciousness at 12:08 PM on January 9 [25 favorites]
posted by Easy problem of consciousness at 12:08 PM on January 9 [25 favorites]
All of us waiting with bated breath for consequences under a system designed specifically to insulate such miscreants from consequence
i cant breathe
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 12:11 PM on January 9 [11 favorites]
i cant breathe
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 12:11 PM on January 9 [11 favorites]
Every time I see any discussion of this (utterly moronic) claim by TFG, I read the word "immunity" in the voice of Joss Ackland at the end of the second Lethal Weapon, and am momentarily disappointed when Danny Glover fails to deadpan "revoked" before shooting him in the chest.
posted by Mayor West at 12:15 PM on January 9 [16 favorites]
posted by Mayor West at 12:15 PM on January 9 [16 favorites]
Could a president order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?"
This has some serious "could God microwave a burrito so hot that even He couldn't eat it?" energy to it. Shame it's from an actual federal trial over the treasonous actions of a sitting president, and not just a transcript of the local forensics team passing the bong around on a Saturday night.
posted by Mayor West at 12:20 PM on January 9 [34 favorites]
This has some serious "could God microwave a burrito so hot that even He couldn't eat it?" energy to it. Shame it's from an actual federal trial over the treasonous actions of a sitting president, and not just a transcript of the local forensics team passing the bong around on a Saturday night.
posted by Mayor West at 12:20 PM on January 9 [34 favorites]
The whole idea of absolute immunity seems farcical to me.
If presidential immunity was real Ford would not have needed to pardon Nixon.
posted by mhoye at 12:22 PM on January 9 [88 favorites]
If presidential immunity was real Ford would not have needed to pardon Nixon.
posted by mhoye at 12:22 PM on January 9 [88 favorites]
A few days ago ABC reported some important leaks from the Smith investigation: Special counsel probe uncovers new details about Trump's inaction on Jan. 6: Sources. "Special counsel Jack Smith's team has uncovered previously undisclosed details about former President Donald Trump's refusal to help stop the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol...what sources now describe to ABC News are the assessments and first-hand accounts of several of Trump's own advisers who stood by him for years."
Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, writes, "The powerful reported testimony goes straight to the crucial issue in the case: Did Trump criminally intend to overturn the 2020 election? His newly reported statements would conclusively establish for any reasonable juror that Trump wanted the siege to succeed in stopping Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s election."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 12:28 PM on January 9 [8 favorites]
Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, writes, "The powerful reported testimony goes straight to the crucial issue in the case: Did Trump criminally intend to overturn the 2020 election? His newly reported statements would conclusively establish for any reasonable juror that Trump wanted the siege to succeed in stopping Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s election."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 12:28 PM on January 9 [8 favorites]
Could a president order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?"
This has some serious "could God microwave a burrito so hot that even He couldn't eat it?" energy to it.
Does it though? You don't have to look very far to find examples of a leader who has his rivals killed with impunity. That is the direction the US is headed if it decides that Presidents are immune to its laws.
posted by Popular Ethics at 12:41 PM on January 9 [12 favorites]
This has some serious "could God microwave a burrito so hot that even He couldn't eat it?" energy to it.
Does it though? You don't have to look very far to find examples of a leader who has his rivals killed with impunity. That is the direction the US is headed if it decides that Presidents are immune to its laws.
posted by Popular Ethics at 12:41 PM on January 9 [12 favorites]
On the one hand, this whole line of discussion is dumb. On the other I did, once, have to explain to my nine year old why jumping off the roof with a picnic umbrella was a bad idea: sometimes you have to clarify things that seem obvious. But in the meantime, it all seems not intelligent.
posted by From Bklyn at 12:44 PM on January 9 [8 favorites]
posted by From Bklyn at 12:44 PM on January 9 [8 favorites]
On the one hand, this whole line of discussion is dumb.
It would be if not for the fact that a former president is actually advancing this BS as a legal defense and so much of the American judiciary is bought and paid for, but those things are true.
posted by Ickster at 12:49 PM on January 9 [11 favorites]
It would be if not for the fact that a former president is actually advancing this BS as a legal defense and so much of the American judiciary is bought and paid for, but those things are true.
posted by Ickster at 12:49 PM on January 9 [11 favorites]
Robert's Rules of Order, as the old saying goes, are the last and best refuge of any scoundrel.
It all boils down to not just one man and his cast of carry-along dingbats, but the entire American right wing attempting to use semantics, deliberate misinterpretations, bad faith arguments, technicalities, loopholes and outright nonsense to prove the First Law of Conservatism true -- that conservatives are protected by the law but not subject to it, and that the reverse is true for everyone else.
posted by delfin at 12:59 PM on January 9 [35 favorites]
It all boils down to not just one man and his cast of carry-along dingbats, but the entire American right wing attempting to use semantics, deliberate misinterpretations, bad faith arguments, technicalities, loopholes and outright nonsense to prove the First Law of Conservatism true -- that conservatives are protected by the law but not subject to it, and that the reverse is true for everyone else.
posted by delfin at 12:59 PM on January 9 [35 favorites]
It should go "President orders Seals to kill rival, then Seals laugh in his face".
It should go "Seals call up the US Marshalls and have him arrested for attempting to order a murder." Otherwise he'll just try again with some other armed government guys until he finds someone who will listen.
It's quite important that this sort of thing carry the threat of prosecution and not just rely on nobody being willing to carry out the order.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:01 PM on January 9 [31 favorites]
It should go "Seals call up the US Marshalls and have him arrested for attempting to order a murder." Otherwise he'll just try again with some other armed government guys until he finds someone who will listen.
It's quite important that this sort of thing carry the threat of prosecution and not just rely on nobody being willing to carry out the order.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:01 PM on January 9 [31 favorites]
Space Force as a whole will certainly align with Trump if asked.
Air Force? Probably. Lotta evangelicals there.
Army, Navy and Marines - probably not, though there may be some lower officer defections.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 1:06 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
Air Force? Probably. Lotta evangelicals there.
Army, Navy and Marines - probably not, though there may be some lower officer defections.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 1:06 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
Shame it's from an actual federal trial over the treasonous actions of a sitting president, and not just a transcript of the local forensics team passing the bong around on a Saturday night.
First time (reading an oral arguments transcript)?
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 1:08 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
First time (reading an oral arguments transcript)?
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 1:08 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
I have to say that after 235 years, it might be time to take a long, hard look at the ambiguities and loopholes present in the U.S. Constitution. I would not be surprised to see a Constitutional Convention in my lifetime. Many of the issues TFG has exploited are present in the base framework. The question is how to get there, and what comes out the other side?
posted by scolbath at 1:09 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]
posted by scolbath at 1:09 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]
The right has been clamouring for a Constitutional Convention for years. There's a few amendments and clauses they're not keen on and would like to scratch out.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 1:11 PM on January 9 [20 favorites]
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 1:11 PM on January 9 [20 favorites]
The point of this argument probably isn't that Cheeto Benito's defense team actually expects it to hold up in court (although if it does, hey, bonus). The point is to have another excuse to delay delay delay. If they can delay any eventual judgment long enough, maybe he can get reelected and the whole question of "legal" becomes moot.
posted by adamrice at 1:14 PM on January 9 [29 favorites]
posted by adamrice at 1:14 PM on January 9 [29 favorites]
I would not be surprised to see a Constitutional Convention in my lifetime.
If we do, given that (as JSCS points out) the right has been trying to make this happen for some time, the experiment will be over.
It's well past time to revise The Constitution, don't get me wrong. It was a decent draft document to start a country at the time – but it's a lot like Conway's Law where (paraphrasing) what gets shipped looks a lot like the organization that's shipping something.
The Constitution was shipped by a bunch of elite white men who didn't want to pay taxes and didn't believe that you should get a say in governance unless you were elite, white, and male. They also, sadly, didn't have the foresight to predict people toting around AR-15s and shit like that. I like to think, if they had, they'd have tightened up the second amendment quite a bit. They'd have probably thrown in a few things about campaign finance and such, too.
But I expect if there's a Constitutional Convention in my lifetime it'll be the opposite of an improvement to the Constitution.
posted by jzb at 1:20 PM on January 9 [22 favorites]
If we do, given that (as JSCS points out) the right has been trying to make this happen for some time, the experiment will be over.
It's well past time to revise The Constitution, don't get me wrong. It was a decent draft document to start a country at the time – but it's a lot like Conway's Law where (paraphrasing) what gets shipped looks a lot like the organization that's shipping something.
The Constitution was shipped by a bunch of elite white men who didn't want to pay taxes and didn't believe that you should get a say in governance unless you were elite, white, and male. They also, sadly, didn't have the foresight to predict people toting around AR-15s and shit like that. I like to think, if they had, they'd have tightened up the second amendment quite a bit. They'd have probably thrown in a few things about campaign finance and such, too.
But I expect if there's a Constitutional Convention in my lifetime it'll be the opposite of an improvement to the Constitution.
posted by jzb at 1:20 PM on January 9 [22 favorites]
Members of the military are trained and sworn to protect the Constitution, which prohibits murder on US soil. The US military generally can't act within the US without permissions. Also, major candidates have Secret Service protection, so this would get untidy fast.
But what really gets me about this, and about the idea of a President pardoning his corrupt, lying, fascist ass, is that they are so good at controlling the narrative that no one is asking if it's wrong. it's utterly wrong, unethical, and a measure of the corruption of the former president and his party. The fact that these questions are being asked by reputable news organizations is making my head asplode.
posted by theora55 at 1:23 PM on January 9 [12 favorites]
But what really gets me about this, and about the idea of a President pardoning his corrupt, lying, fascist ass, is that they are so good at controlling the narrative that no one is asking if it's wrong. it's utterly wrong, unethical, and a measure of the corruption of the former president and his party. The fact that these questions are being asked by reputable news organizations is making my head asplode.
posted by theora55 at 1:23 PM on January 9 [12 favorites]
If they can delay any eventual judgment long enough, maybe he can get reelected and the whole question of "legal" becomes moot.
Indeed. The appellate court will take some time to render a judgment, then Trump's team will request a rehearing en banc (i.e. hearing the case before all of the judges on the DC Circuit, not a 3 judge panel), and that will take some time to decide. If rehearing en banc is granted, then that's a whole 'nother round of scheduling. Then there's the appeal to the Supreme Court.
And he doesn't have to delay judgment all the way to being sworn in. He just has to get close enough to the election that the judges aren't willing to risk "interfering", thus making not only presidents but also presidential candidates above the law.
posted by jedicus at 1:26 PM on January 9 [10 favorites]
Indeed. The appellate court will take some time to render a judgment, then Trump's team will request a rehearing en banc (i.e. hearing the case before all of the judges on the DC Circuit, not a 3 judge panel), and that will take some time to decide. If rehearing en banc is granted, then that's a whole 'nother round of scheduling. Then there's the appeal to the Supreme Court.
And he doesn't have to delay judgment all the way to being sworn in. He just has to get close enough to the election that the judges aren't willing to risk "interfering", thus making not only presidents but also presidential candidates above the law.
posted by jedicus at 1:26 PM on January 9 [10 favorites]
I would not be surprised to see a Constitutional Convention in my lifetime.
It will probably happen after a second Civil War, if it does. Republicans are pretty serious about establishing a capital-F Fascist regime via Trump; it is unclear the rest of the country will go along with them.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:27 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
It will probably happen after a second Civil War, if it does. Republicans are pretty serious about establishing a capital-F Fascist regime via Trump; it is unclear the rest of the country will go along with them.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:27 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
The thing about even an Article V Constitution is that while some screaming horrors of amendments would no doubt be proposed, they would still have to run the gauntlet of 3/4 of America's state legislatures to be ratified and become the law of the land. The hard right couldn't just cram 26 Mark Levin clones into a room and declare, majority rules, we win, welcome to Christopia.
It remains a dangerous and potentially destructive concept nonetheless, which is one reason why even the Cato Institute opposes it -- they are conscious of the tonnage of that particular bomb, so to speak, and how much havoc it could wreak.
posted by delfin at 1:33 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
It remains a dangerous and potentially destructive concept nonetheless, which is one reason why even the Cato Institute opposes it -- they are conscious of the tonnage of that particular bomb, so to speak, and how much havoc it could wreak.
posted by delfin at 1:33 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
The thing that I keep coming back to is that Trump - capital-t Trump - is going to try every possible reason for him to be able to say "because I said so," (which is probably how he was parented, if I was going to read into things). Every reason imaginable.
TRUMP: Have you tried blaming aliens?
LAWYERS: Well you see, Mr. President...
T: DO IT. DO IT NOW.
We are going to see alllllll kinds of wacky shit from him to justify immunity, everything you (and that one guy from college) can imagine, so it may be pointless to focus on the arguments themselves. He'll take the aliens defense to the Supreme Court, not the least because it will consume time. Mind, he's also racing against the health clock. If, god forbid, he had Sharon's Disease (a stroke) or even died, he would still be free.
posted by rhizome at 1:37 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
TRUMP: Have you tried blaming aliens?
LAWYERS: Well you see, Mr. President...
T: DO IT. DO IT NOW.
We are going to see alllllll kinds of wacky shit from him to justify immunity, everything you (and that one guy from college) can imagine, so it may be pointless to focus on the arguments themselves. He'll take the aliens defense to the Supreme Court, not the least because it will consume time. Mind, he's also racing against the health clock. If, god forbid, he had Sharon's Disease (a stroke) or even died, he would still be free.
posted by rhizome at 1:37 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
[A Constitutional Convention] remains a dangerous and potentially destructive concept nonetheless
I mean, what's the hurry? We haven't even tried repealing the 2nd Amendment yet.
posted by rhizome at 1:39 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
I mean, what's the hurry? We haven't even tried repealing the 2nd Amendment yet.
posted by rhizome at 1:39 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
If the President of the United States is immune from prosecutions for murder, then the only way to get away with murder is if you kill the current President and become the new one. And that’s why [closeup on Nic Cage’s face] we have to steal the Declaration of Independence.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 1:39 PM on January 9 [23 favorites]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 1:39 PM on January 9 [23 favorites]
If, god forbid, he had Sharon's Disease (a stroke) or even died, he would still be free.
I'm perfectly willing to take that trade-off. We can settle the legal question of presidential immunity later.
posted by Naberius at 1:39 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
I'm perfectly willing to take that trade-off. We can settle the legal question of presidential immunity later.
posted by Naberius at 1:39 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
I agree it's a nuclear weapon, but how much longer can this go on? It's the equivalent at this point to a 235-year-old hostage situation which never gets any better. I think the way it could happen "productively" (to use that term very loosely) would be after some significant event. A civil war? Possibly - but I think the threshold is much lower. And if it were something ghastly but not at that level, it might be survivable. And I think Jan 6 is/was pretty damn close to a civil war.
posted by scolbath at 1:41 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
posted by scolbath at 1:41 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
We'd need 38 states to agree to amend the Constitution. One of our two political parties controls the legislature of almost 30 states now, while the other controls fewer than 20. I'll let you guess which is which. One clue: the one with more control is also pushing *very* hard, through gerrymanders and attacks on voting rights, for more.
Any Constitutional Convention in our lifetimes would likely be very bad news for the left.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 1:45 PM on January 9 [13 favorites]
Any Constitutional Convention in our lifetimes would likely be very bad news for the left.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 1:45 PM on January 9 [13 favorites]
If I'm Joe Biden, I have SEAL team six as a 'Favorite Contact' in my phone right about now. Just in case things break that way. And maybe a wish list in the Notes app. I mean, if they're gonna crown an MFer king, might as well use it.
posted by dragstroke at 2:27 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
posted by dragstroke at 2:27 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
I think the way it could happen "productively" (to use that term very loosely) would be after some significant event. A civil war? Possibly - but I think the threshold is much lower. And if it were something ghastly but not at that level, it might be survivable. And I think Jan 6 is/was pretty damn close to a civil war.
January 6th, "pretty damn close to a civil war," resulted in 147 Congressional Republicans voting to support the end goal of the insurrection, zero members of the Sedition Caucus receiving meaningful consequences for that, an attempt to nominate open seditionists to the J6 investigatory committee, a rejection of said committee as "unconstitional and invalid," attempts to rig state election machinery at various levels, the perpetuation of the lost-cause stolen-election myth, Trump vocalizing the possibility of pardoning convicted J6 rioters if reelected, and a state of affairs right now in which the same jackals and thieves are lined up in position to try it all again.
The flaw in your argument, I am sad to say, is that you believe that an event can happen which will cause the Serious People in the Republican Party to rise up at various levels in numbers and declare that there are limits, that this has all gone too far, that their house needs not just cleaning but sandblasting, and that those who support the previous fraud and insanity are no longer welcome.
This happened. The "in numbers" was a count of approximately twelve of them. The rest stand firm.
posted by delfin at 2:28 PM on January 9 [33 favorites]
January 6th, "pretty damn close to a civil war," resulted in 147 Congressional Republicans voting to support the end goal of the insurrection, zero members of the Sedition Caucus receiving meaningful consequences for that, an attempt to nominate open seditionists to the J6 investigatory committee, a rejection of said committee as "unconstitional and invalid," attempts to rig state election machinery at various levels, the perpetuation of the lost-cause stolen-election myth, Trump vocalizing the possibility of pardoning convicted J6 rioters if reelected, and a state of affairs right now in which the same jackals and thieves are lined up in position to try it all again.
The flaw in your argument, I am sad to say, is that you believe that an event can happen which will cause the Serious People in the Republican Party to rise up at various levels in numbers and declare that there are limits, that this has all gone too far, that their house needs not just cleaning but sandblasting, and that those who support the previous fraud and insanity are no longer welcome.
This happened. The "in numbers" was a count of approximately twelve of them. The rest stand firm.
posted by delfin at 2:28 PM on January 9 [33 favorites]
If you can only try a President for a crime for which he or she has been impeached and convicted, the only logical move for a President facing indictment is to have Congress killed. Now there's no one to impeach and the President can never be indicted for anything.
That's the natural endpoint of this legal argument is it not?
posted by Justinian at 2:36 PM on January 9 [22 favorites]
That's the natural endpoint of this legal argument is it not?
posted by Justinian at 2:36 PM on January 9 [22 favorites]
Where does it say you can't kill enough senators afterwards to prevent a successful impeachment vote?
posted by mazola at 2:43 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
posted by mazola at 2:43 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
Absolute immunity would have indemnified post-FDR two-term Presidents from even the Constitutional obligation to leave office after those limits, right? I mean there's no logic here, just a raw grasp at power by a candidate via corrupted courts?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:45 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:45 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
It doesn't say that you can't appoint dogs to those Senate vacancies, but the new canine Senators will remain barred from the NBA.
Pro basketball, unlike Congress, has rules.
posted by delfin at 2:47 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
Pro basketball, unlike Congress, has rules.
posted by delfin at 2:47 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
Wasn't one of the premise for the formation of the United States the idea that the Sovereign should be subject to the same laws as everyone else?
This whole immunity thing sure makes it seem like a return to the old days of kings that can't be questioned or disobeyed.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:01 PM on January 9 [21 favorites]
This whole immunity thing sure makes it seem like a return to the old days of kings that can't be questioned or disobeyed.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:01 PM on January 9 [21 favorites]
Reform of the US constitution, especially the gross power imbalance in state-based representation in both the Senate and constitutional conventions, is the only thing that can ultimately save the USA, and the world, from sliding headlong into violent feudal tyranny.
Beyond immediate survival, it is the most serious and urgent issue the USA, and the world, faces.
If the USA succumbs to tyranny, nowhere will be safe.
Yet it is risky in the extreme, precisely because of the gross imbalance in state-based misrepresentation. It is also nigh on impossible in the foreseeable future. There is no world in which those US states enjoying that disproportionate power will give it up willingly or peacefully. That has been made abundantly clear in recent times.
I have no idea how to proceed from here, and apparently neither does anybody else. :(
posted by Pouteria at 3:03 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]
Beyond immediate survival, it is the most serious and urgent issue the USA, and the world, faces.
If the USA succumbs to tyranny, nowhere will be safe.
Yet it is risky in the extreme, precisely because of the gross imbalance in state-based misrepresentation. It is also nigh on impossible in the foreseeable future. There is no world in which those US states enjoying that disproportionate power will give it up willingly or peacefully. That has been made abundantly clear in recent times.
I have no idea how to proceed from here, and apparently neither does anybody else. :(
posted by Pouteria at 3:03 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]
Biden is a very law abiding person, now if the Supreme Court establishes that this is the Law, I do hope they make their ruling before January 2025.
posted by sammyo at 3:18 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
posted by sammyo at 3:18 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
If I'm Joe Biden, I have SEAL team six as a 'Favorite Contact' in my phone right about now.
I suspect I'm more of a nihilist than he is, but c'mon, if I were his age and in his position I'd absolutely order an extraordinary rendition of TFG the split-second any court ruled the President has total immunity. I'd probably also order a rendition of the entire set of judiciary that made the ruling, just for the extra spice. Have the black-bagging be done by those scary "contractors" that always look like accountants with thousand-yard stares.
...and I'd do it on live television, complete with long-range scopes showing TFG being black-bagged, followed by a closeup of me smiling, saying "thanks for the ruling motherfuckers, we gonna have all kinds of fun now!"
Then I'd laugh my ass off.
posted by aramaic at 3:20 PM on January 9 [23 favorites]
I suspect I'm more of a nihilist than he is, but c'mon, if I were his age and in his position I'd absolutely order an extraordinary rendition of TFG the split-second any court ruled the President has total immunity. I'd probably also order a rendition of the entire set of judiciary that made the ruling, just for the extra spice. Have the black-bagging be done by those scary "contractors" that always look like accountants with thousand-yard stares.
...and I'd do it on live television, complete with long-range scopes showing TFG being black-bagged, followed by a closeup of me smiling, saying "thanks for the ruling motherfuckers, we gonna have all kinds of fun now!"
Then I'd laugh my ass off.
posted by aramaic at 3:20 PM on January 9 [23 favorites]
I feel like the 'right way' to execute a congressperson, under the current rules, would be to have a paramilitary group do it (proud boys or oath keepers or similar). Then you immediately pardon them, then pardon yourself.
Let the lawyers argue about the self-pardon, that'll be tied up for years. And in the meantime, you have this very useful paramilitary group.
I'm still pretty amazed Trump was too stupid to pull it off. In the end, I think he just couldn't be trusted to hand out the pardons. Everyone knew he'd dangle them in public, and tweet about it for weeks. All he had to do was sign that shit on a Friday and get it done, fuck the ratings. But he would never.
e: aramaic, your plan doesn't give Senators enough cover to avoid an impeachment conviction.
posted by ryanrs at 3:22 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
Let the lawyers argue about the self-pardon, that'll be tied up for years. And in the meantime, you have this very useful paramilitary group.
I'm still pretty amazed Trump was too stupid to pull it off. In the end, I think he just couldn't be trusted to hand out the pardons. Everyone knew he'd dangle them in public, and tweet about it for weeks. All he had to do was sign that shit on a Friday and get it done, fuck the ratings. But he would never.
e: aramaic, your plan doesn't give Senators enough cover to avoid an impeachment conviction.
posted by ryanrs at 3:22 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
2016: You're overreacting. It won't get that bad.
2017: You're overreacting. It won't get that bad.
2018: You're overreacting. It won't get that bad.
2019: You're overreacting. It won't get that bad.
2020: You're overreacting. It won't get that bad.
2021: You're overreacting. It won't get that bad.
2022: You're overreacting. It won't get that bad.
2023: You're overreacting. It won't get that bad.
2024: Could a president order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?
posted by AlSweigart at 3:41 PM on January 9 [74 favorites]
2017: You're overreacting. It won't get that bad.
2018: You're overreacting. It won't get that bad.
2019: You're overreacting. It won't get that bad.
2020: You're overreacting. It won't get that bad.
2021: You're overreacting. It won't get that bad.
2022: You're overreacting. It won't get that bad.
2023: You're overreacting. It won't get that bad.
2024: Could a president order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?
posted by AlSweigart at 3:41 PM on January 9 [74 favorites]
I'd like that question to be moot. Like it shouldn't be "President orders Seals to kill rival, then Seals kill rival, then President is arrested for having rival killed". It should go "President orders Seals to kill rival, then Seals laugh in his face".
The problem with that is the military doesn't want to have to make its own decision on political lines. It wants to do what it's told by the commander in chief. That's the lynchpin behind civilian control of the military. Once you force the military to break that taboo, whether it by forcing them to assassinate a rival or by the military refusing to assassinate a rival, all constitutional bets are off.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:48 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
The problem with that is the military doesn't want to have to make its own decision on political lines. It wants to do what it's told by the commander in chief. That's the lynchpin behind civilian control of the military. Once you force the military to break that taboo, whether it by forcing them to assassinate a rival or by the military refusing to assassinate a rival, all constitutional bets are off.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:48 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
The point of this argument probably isn't that Cheeto Benito's defense team actually expects it to hold up in court (although if it does, hey, bonus). The point is to have another excuse to delay delay delay.
No, honestly, I think that HE thinks this is real. I mean, Nixon said almost exactly this back in his interviews with David Frost.
There are people who assume the president has more power than he actually does. Hell, there were people in here who were making those assumptions of Obama back during his administration and kept getting frustrated that he wasn't making some grand sweeping change that the president does not have the power to make without involving congress.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:50 PM on January 9 [9 favorites]
No, honestly, I think that HE thinks this is real. I mean, Nixon said almost exactly this back in his interviews with David Frost.
There are people who assume the president has more power than he actually does. Hell, there were people in here who were making those assumptions of Obama back during his administration and kept getting frustrated that he wasn't making some grand sweeping change that the president does not have the power to make without involving congress.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:50 PM on January 9 [9 favorites]
It's like breaking the sound barrier. You have to move through that region of instability quickly if you want to achieve supersonic fascism.
posted by ryanrs at 3:57 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 3:57 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]
Once you force the military to break that taboo...
But aren't they also trained to refuse illegal orders?
... but I guess it wouldn't be illegal then. Hmm...
posted by MtDewd at 4:01 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
But aren't they also trained to refuse illegal orders?
... but I guess it wouldn't be illegal then. Hmm...
posted by MtDewd at 4:01 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
I love how all usual mod deletions of discussion of murdering people just goes straight out the window once we add the caveat about “legally” murdering the same people. Totally different… 😭
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 4:05 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 4:05 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
"Then, I have an Article II, where I have to the right(sic) to do whatever I want as president,” he said. “But I don’t even talk about that.”
Trump repeated variations on it in various contexts for just as long as it was useful to him, i.e. to get the rubes to sing along. If he truly believed that A2 was an ironclad governance over Presidential behavior, that he literally was Emperor Polyp the First and that others would recognize that A2 authority, he wouldn't have gone through the post-election legal puppet show that he did; he would have simply staged an open coup and thrown out the election by force and fiat. And if he truly believed that A2 grants a POTUS immunity from consequences, he wouldn't be here now, for fear that Biden would have a free hand to do anything he wanted to him.
posted by delfin at 4:14 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
Trump repeated variations on it in various contexts for just as long as it was useful to him, i.e. to get the rubes to sing along. If he truly believed that A2 was an ironclad governance over Presidential behavior, that he literally was Emperor Polyp the First and that others would recognize that A2 authority, he wouldn't have gone through the post-election legal puppet show that he did; he would have simply staged an open coup and thrown out the election by force and fiat. And if he truly believed that A2 grants a POTUS immunity from consequences, he wouldn't be here now, for fear that Biden would have a free hand to do anything he wanted to him.
posted by delfin at 4:14 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
This is absolutely not theoretical. Trump warns of ‘bedlam,’ declines to rule out violence after court hearing.
posted by Nelson at 4:14 PM on January 9 [9 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 4:14 PM on January 9 [9 favorites]
Stochastic terrorist
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:51 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:51 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
One yearns for the quiet dignity of a Richard Nixon; a good, old-fashioned president who commits treason, gets caught, resigns, and simply flies away like an evil Mary Poppins.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:57 PM on January 9 [29 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:57 PM on January 9 [29 favorites]
Mandatory trial for every President leaving office.
posted by whuppy at 5:18 PM on January 9 [8 favorites]
posted by whuppy at 5:18 PM on January 9 [8 favorites]
Once you start leading a war against the United States then the President can order the military to fight you and if your family happens to be with you when a hellfire missile blows up your armed convoy too bad.
posted by interogative mood at 5:33 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 5:33 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
they would still have to run the gauntlet of 3/4 of America's state legislatures to be ratified and become the law of the land
A personal favorite fantasy proposal gets around this: Pack the Union. "pass legislation reducing the size of Washington, D.C., to an area encompassing only a few core federal buildings and then admit the rest of the District’s 127 neighborhoods as states... with a simple congressional majority" who then pass amendments fixing the various problems with disproportional representation, and finally one that makes it so this trick can't be used again.
posted by BungaDunga at 6:18 PM on January 9 [12 favorites]
A personal favorite fantasy proposal gets around this: Pack the Union. "pass legislation reducing the size of Washington, D.C., to an area encompassing only a few core federal buildings and then admit the rest of the District’s 127 neighborhoods as states... with a simple congressional majority" who then pass amendments fixing the various problems with disproportional representation, and finally one that makes it so this trick can't be used again.
posted by BungaDunga at 6:18 PM on January 9 [12 favorites]
I was thinking back to my old 7th grade Civics class and trying to remember exactly which of the articles or amendments it is that includes the Presidential Immunity Clause.
Was it Article 4 or maybe the 2nd Amendment. Gosh, I just can't quite recall.
How ever did I manage to pass the 7th grade?
And a quick google gives the correct answer:
Neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted in the Constitution or any federal statute.
Well color me surprised and amazed. This whole debate is a huge steaming pile of Grade A horseshit without any basis whatsoever.
Everyone, please proceed . . .
posted by flug at 6:25 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
Was it Article 4 or maybe the 2nd Amendment. Gosh, I just can't quite recall.
How ever did I manage to pass the 7th grade?
And a quick google gives the correct answer:
Neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted in the Constitution or any federal statute.
Well color me surprised and amazed. This whole debate is a huge steaming pile of Grade A horseshit without any basis whatsoever.
Everyone, please proceed . . .
posted by flug at 6:25 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
I suspect I'm more of a nihilist than he is, but c'mon,
The Darkest Brandonest timeline.
posted by otherchaz at 6:52 PM on January 9
The Darkest Brandonest timeline.
posted by otherchaz at 6:52 PM on January 9
I suspect I'm more of a nihilist than he is, but c'mon,
Events from the Darkest Brandonest timeline.
posted by otherchaz at 6:57 PM on January 9
Events from the Darkest Brandonest timeline.
posted by otherchaz at 6:57 PM on January 9
If the Presidency gives you neither civil nor criminal nor virological immunity, what good is it?
posted by otherchaz at 6:59 PM on January 9
posted by otherchaz at 6:59 PM on January 9
If the "he wasn't convicted in the Senate so he gets off" thing works, fuck Mitch McConnell.
posted by clawsoon at 7:00 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 7:00 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
fuck him regardless
posted by ryanrs at 7:26 PM on January 9 [8 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 7:26 PM on January 9 [8 favorites]
Hell, fuck Mitch McConnell either way!
posted by kensington314 at 7:32 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
posted by kensington314 at 7:32 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
They didn't spend much time on it, but what I found even more shocking was the idea that if a president commits multiple crimes, but only gets impeached for one of them, even if convicted and removed from office, Trump's lawyers would have the president be immune from all the crimes he committed that weren't part of the impeachment.
But of course, it would never get that far, because any president that thinks there's a real shot of them being convicted on impeachment should immediately resign, thus rendering themselves forever immune.
I hope when the lawyer conceded these points, the judges didn't press further because they were thinking "Yeah, that tells us everything we need to know."
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:52 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
But of course, it would never get that far, because any president that thinks there's a real shot of them being convicted on impeachment should immediately resign, thus rendering themselves forever immune.
I hope when the lawyer conceded these points, the judges didn't press further because they were thinking "Yeah, that tells us everything we need to know."
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:52 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
>This has been the Trumpists' argument all along: they take legitimate/leftwing arguments and turn them inwards.
In theory, there is no difference between Obama signing the killing of a teenage son of a terrorist and Trump signing the killing of Pence. But in practice there is a huge difference. If there is anything positive to be said about the Trump presidency, it will be that we have to think about this, deeply. And it's fucking hard.
I don't think Obama killing a teenager residing in a country with which the US is not in a state of war is in anywise legitimate or left wing.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 7:58 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
In theory, there is no difference between Obama signing the killing of a teenage son of a terrorist and Trump signing the killing of Pence. But in practice there is a huge difference. If there is anything positive to be said about the Trump presidency, it will be that we have to think about this, deeply. And it's fucking hard.
I don't think Obama killing a teenager residing in a country with which the US is not in a state of war is in anywise legitimate or left wing.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 7:58 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
I'm slightly fascinated by some people's use of "whataboutism" to attack Democrats rather that express outrage at Trump's moral failings. I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. But since it's an election year, I have some guesses.
posted by elwoodwiles at 8:27 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
posted by elwoodwiles at 8:27 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
>I'm slightly fascinated by some people's use of "whataboutism" to attack Democrats rather that express outrage at Trump's moral failings. I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. But since it's an election year, I have some guesses.
Do you really think that people critical of the unchecked violence of the imperial presidency are Trump supporters?
There is always a scramble to legitimate "our" violence, and treat Trump as some utter break with the past. But Trump's criminality is the fruit of decades of increasingly centralized power, and increasingly arbitrary and lawless slaughter at the order of the executive.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 8:34 PM on January 9 [13 favorites]
Do you really think that people critical of the unchecked violence of the imperial presidency are Trump supporters?
There is always a scramble to legitimate "our" violence, and treat Trump as some utter break with the past. But Trump's criminality is the fruit of decades of increasingly centralized power, and increasingly arbitrary and lawless slaughter at the order of the executive.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 8:34 PM on January 9 [13 favorites]
The problem with that is the military doesn't want to have to make its own decision on political lines. It wants to do what it's told by the commander in chief...
I'm not so sure about that. It may well be that everyone up and down the chain would claim that it's not a legal order and they cannot follow illegal orders. Because, well, in the military you cannot follow illegal orders. At least that's my understanding.
I, for one, would appreciate Corb's perspective on this.
posted by VTX at 8:37 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
I'm not so sure about that. It may well be that everyone up and down the chain would claim that it's not a legal order and they cannot follow illegal orders. Because, well, in the military you cannot follow illegal orders. At least that's my understanding.
I, for one, would appreciate Corb's perspective on this.
posted by VTX at 8:37 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
"Judge Henderson also expressed worry that allowing the case to proceed could “open the floodgates” of prosecutions of former presidents."
She says that like that's a bad thing.
posted by milnak at 9:01 PM on January 9 [12 favorites]
She says that like that's a bad thing.
posted by milnak at 9:01 PM on January 9 [12 favorites]
Hell, fuck Mitch McConnell either way!
Ew, no thanks.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:06 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
Ew, no thanks.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:06 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
It may well be that everyone up and down the chain would claim that it's not a legal order and they cannot follow illegal orders.
That's why you create a Presidential Guard, hand-picked from DOJ and DHS law enforcement agencies (Secret Service, FBI, Border Patrol, etc).
Make that chain of command short and sweet, and put 'President' in the name so everyone's clear on who is giving the orders.
Wouldn't hurt for Mr. Dictator to start carrying around a pistol, as well. Fascists will love it! Maybe a PPK, like Reagan had.
posted by ryanrs at 10:14 PM on January 9
That's why you create a Presidential Guard, hand-picked from DOJ and DHS law enforcement agencies (Secret Service, FBI, Border Patrol, etc).
Make that chain of command short and sweet, and put 'President' in the name so everyone's clear on who is giving the orders.
Wouldn't hurt for Mr. Dictator to start carrying around a pistol, as well. Fascists will love it! Maybe a PPK, like Reagan had.
posted by ryanrs at 10:14 PM on January 9
(I mention these classic fascist moves not to recommend them, but to note them as things we should be watching for.)
posted by ryanrs at 10:25 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 10:25 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
Frankly, I don't think any future president is going to have to worry about seal team six being unwilling to commit crimes.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 10:35 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
posted by The Manwich Horror at 10:35 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
So, acording to Trump lawyers Nixon was right?
Does this mean Biden can have Trump whacked with no consequences, as long as 35 Senators vote to not impeach?
posted by Marky at 11:56 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
Does this mean Biden can have Trump whacked with no consequences, as long as 35 Senators vote to not impeach?
posted by Marky at 11:56 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
Now we are imagining things...
In general, I'm against murder and also capital punishment. And it would also be much more entertaining to have Trump end his days in Guantanamo (or alternatively, a cage in some random tropical dictatorship). Three weeks of roasting down there, with no hair dye and no mood enhancers, and he will be toast.
posted by mumimor at 3:43 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]
In general, I'm against murder and also capital punishment. And it would also be much more entertaining to have Trump end his days in Guantanamo (or alternatively, a cage in some random tropical dictatorship). Three weeks of roasting down there, with no hair dye and no mood enhancers, and he will be toast.
posted by mumimor at 3:43 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]
I'm curious about how you can hold a President accountable if he has his political rival assassinated while in office, but the evidence isn't found until the President has left office. You can't impeach a President who isn't serving. And since the President wasn't impeached and can't be impeached then no prosecution can occur either. Fun.
posted by ryoshu at 6:55 AM on January 10 [4 favorites]
posted by ryoshu at 6:55 AM on January 10 [4 favorites]
Murderous despots love this one neat trick!
posted by Servo5678 at 7:15 AM on January 10 [6 favorites]
posted by Servo5678 at 7:15 AM on January 10 [6 favorites]
Well color me surprised and amazed. This whole debate is a huge steaming pile of Grade A horseshit without any basis whatsoever.I am in no way espousing this myself, but the theory that proponents of an Imperial Presidency want to advance is that this is implicit in separation of powers. Nixon infamously phrased it as “when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal.” The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Judicial branch the power to sit in judgment of the President; therefore, if it were to happen, it would be an example of the Judicial usurping the power of the Executive.
They bolster the theory with the fact that the Constitution does prescribe an explicit remedy for a criminal President in the form of impeachment, and thus that because it explicitly describes the one thing and not the other, that the other does not exist. If you look at it from this angle and squint really hard you can even see how they can invent this whole Imperial Presidency notion and still claim they are “originalists.”
That gets us here:
If the "he wasn't convicted in the Senate so he gets off" thing works, fuck Mitch McConnell.Now, I am an enthusiastic layman, so there are absolutely angles I won’t see, but I am in no way worried about this, even with this Supreme Court. Absolutely nobody thinks that American Psycho II: The Bateman Administration would end with the protagonist proudly raising his bloody, dripping axe on the podium. More on this below.
If presidential immunity was real Ford would not have needed to pardon Nixon.Weeeelllll… that’s not quite right. Ford’s pardon of Nixon was in part a strategy to avoid the question of Presidential immunity. The fact that this is opening a can of worms in the middle of a shit storm is a big part of the “good of the nation” argument. We all just went “thank goodness that’s over” and looked the other way for fifty years.
In my opinion, the Imperial Presidency theory is just barely interesting enough you can’t laugh it out of court, but does ultimately fall to the venerable principle of omnino stultus. The problem for the Supreme Court is not whether to allow the President to become an Emperor, but how to reject it in a way that doesn’t inadvertently create new law that will be weaponized against future administrations. One of the underappreciated facets of the SCOTUS is how wary they need to be of the apparently obvious response to a particular case. A slam-dunk shouldn’t be in front of the Court in the first place. There is a question, however ridiculous, about conflicting interpretations of something not explicitly defined in the Constitution, and their ruling will create something explicit with authority tantamount to the Constitution itself. Thus what can sometimes appear to an outside observer as cowardice or laziness is usually self-restraint instead.
Now, I am not qualified to suggest that someone sitting on the Supreme Court isn’t qualified, but we do have three Justices appointed by the very criminal President who notoriously makes every decision along lines of his own anticipated self-interest, plus one corrupt old sexual predator whose wife is transparently seditious. This Court has already issued the most reckless ruling I think most of us will see in our lifetimes, so I definitely understand the fear, but I still have some hope here.
First, the fallout of overturning Roe has already served as a horrifying demonstration of the SCOTUS as a bull in a china shop. Only one of the Justices would I call a die-hard anti-abortion ideologue, and even she has to have some sense of the blood on her hands in just a few short months. It’s not like the blowback has been in any way subtle.
Second, it’s one thing to nullify a previous ruling about one issue and pawn off responsibility onto the states, and quite another to create a de novo Constitutional regime with far-reaching implications for the entire Republic. I might be unpleasantly surprised, but I strongly doubt we have five whole Justices who won’t blanch at that.
I’m basing this on an assessment of character more than a rigorous review of past rulings, but Roberts is a great example of how the security of a lifetime appointment can result in a more tempered Justice than their appointing President intended, Thomas might sell the Republic but won’t give it away because of an ideology, Alito can be a wildcard for good or for ill, Barrett is a religious nut, not a fascist, Gorsuch would hand over the Republic to corporations, but not to a dictator, and Kavanaugh is just happy to be there. Depending on the specific question I’d bank on a 6/3 split against Trump at the very worst.
Trump’s immunity claims have a lot of problems on which they might fall apart well before we get to a question that might put a crown on his head. Even his explicit civil immunity is scoped to the “outer perimeter” of his duties as President. Thus we already have precedent for a limit, however vaguely defined, to Executive power. Trump is pushing an absolute immunity theory, but I don’t think he can get there without addressing the “outer perimeter” of his duties, and more particularly how an attempt to thwart the legal transition of power falls within that perimeter. A scheme to undermine the constitutionally-prescribed electoral process is hard to square with an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” to put it mildly. Then although Trump imagines stalling long enough to get re-elected is a “get out of jail free” card, the idea that in-process prosecutions will just evaporate on Inauguration Day is dubious at best. “Unlikely to prevail” is the term of art, I believe. In addition, even a ruling conferring absolute immunity in federal court isn’t sufficient. The Georgia situation entails the follow-up question whether any such immunity is binding on state courts, and frankly the last time we had a question of that magnitude come up it took a war to sort it out.
Much as he wants to be America’s Hitler (or at least America’s Putin), Trump does not have enough going for him to make him worth that. I’m pretty skeptical he’d even live through another term. The man is declining fast. And even so, he’s causing as much chaos as benefit for his own party. People who toe the line in public are often a lot more conflicted in private. Putting myself in their shoes, here’s what I’m looking at: If we go to the mat for Trump, I know we’re putting a dictator into office, a chaos agent who demands loyalty he absolutely does not reciprocate, one who has grudges to settle and will show immediately and dramatically why we don’t want to enable that. I know even if this dictator manages to get rid of term limits, he’s living on borrowed time. I look around at the clown circus competing to take up Trump’s mantle and see a coterie of embarrassing poseurs who try to mimic his act, but lack the inexplicable “lightning in a bottle” quality that got the band together in the first place. If I do the math, we don’t have the time or the leverage to build our own Thousand-Year Reich with Trump as the linchpin. Once he goes, the right falls to pieces (they’re almost as brittle as Trump himself as it is), and what happens then is anybody’s guess, with some extremely dire options on the table.
In short, we live in precarious times, but my faith in people’s self-interest makes up for my skepticism about their virtue. Trump is not a good bet, and the reasons for that will tip the scales against him. Re-election would complicate things, but I’m skeptical he can do even as well today as he did in 2020. I’m far more concerned that many of his cultists haven’t gotten the message after all the January 6th prosecutions and that the outcome of the election won’t matter to them. My crystal ball suggests that Trump will get his comeuppance, but it will not be as satisfying as we’d hope, because people will try to avoid poking the hornet’s nest. He will not be your President next year, but the pro forma cries of fraud will ring hollow because they’re obviously gratuitous replays of a classic hit.
At my most optimistic, I think the history-book version of this era will be that the American right spent decades building towards an authoritarian one-party state, and came perilously close, only to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at the zenith of their power by their foolish obsession with an elderly, malevolent buffoon. This will be one of those chapters future US History students will find hilarious and baffling and wonder why people in the olden days were so dumb.
posted by gelfin at 7:20 AM on January 10 [15 favorites]
“Let's talk about Trump, Seal Team 6, and rivals....”—Beau of the Fifth Column, 10 January 2024
posted by ob1quixote at 7:52 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 7:52 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]
I remain of the view that the SCOTUS will not do anything that risks ceding their power to the likes of Trump.
posted by Pouteria at 8:05 AM on January 10 [4 favorites]
posted by Pouteria at 8:05 AM on January 10 [4 favorites]
You can't impeach a President who isn't serving.
You probably can, office-holders have been impeached by the House after they resigned.
But this is academic, no Republican president will ever be convicted in an impeachment trial. Especially if he's literally holding a gun to their heads.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:51 AM on January 10
You probably can, office-holders have been impeached by the House after they resigned.
But this is academic, no Republican president will ever be convicted in an impeachment trial. Especially if he's literally holding a gun to their heads.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:51 AM on January 10
To be blunt, the real problem here is not the notion that some judge will declare "yes, a POTUS can just have anyone snuffed out with impunity" and that Seal Team 6 will be ordered into play. The problem is that Trump has a reasonable grasp of the difference between instigation and the legal definition of incitement to violence.
This has been a problem for as long as criminal syndicates have existed, of course. Famously, it's why Al Capone had to be brought down via tax evasion charges -- because he was smart enough not to have his personal fingerprints on the gun, so to speak. Stochastic terrorism is a powerful force. One of the lessons of J6 was that when Trump told the Proud Boys to "Stand back and stand by," they really did stand by and await direct orders -- and the call to J6 was close enough to one. The constant drumbeat of Biden-and-Dems-are-committing-treason, Biden-and-Dems-are-trying-to-kill-you, Biden-and-Dems-are-destroying-Real-America, America-is-being-invaded, someone-needs-to-DO-something is designed to provoke very specific reactions -- and that drumbeat is NOT coming solely from Trump. Far from it.
JFK and RFK and MLK are not ancient history; they were within the lifetimes of many people who are reading this post. Gabby Giffords says 'Hi.' Gretchen Whitmer has something to say about this. The delight of many on the right in throwing around the word 'treason' -- with all of its connotations of punishment-by-death, with all of its Day-of-the-Rope white supremacist associations and daydreams of restoring Real America at the point of AR-15s, with the American right's tireless efforts to maintain an America in which any American, no matter how crazed or tainted, should be able to arm themselves with any gun in any place -- well, it's constant intent and intimidation.
It is unlikely to me that Trump will ever go on Twitter and deliver a direct order to kill someone or many someones, "it's go time, now." It is unlikely to me because, quite frankly, he already has conveyed those orders in language coded juuuuuuust enough.
posted by delfin at 8:55 AM on January 10 [12 favorites]
This has been a problem for as long as criminal syndicates have existed, of course. Famously, it's why Al Capone had to be brought down via tax evasion charges -- because he was smart enough not to have his personal fingerprints on the gun, so to speak. Stochastic terrorism is a powerful force. One of the lessons of J6 was that when Trump told the Proud Boys to "Stand back and stand by," they really did stand by and await direct orders -- and the call to J6 was close enough to one. The constant drumbeat of Biden-and-Dems-are-committing-treason, Biden-and-Dems-are-trying-to-kill-you, Biden-and-Dems-are-destroying-Real-America, America-is-being-invaded, someone-needs-to-DO-something is designed to provoke very specific reactions -- and that drumbeat is NOT coming solely from Trump. Far from it.
JFK and RFK and MLK are not ancient history; they were within the lifetimes of many people who are reading this post. Gabby Giffords says 'Hi.' Gretchen Whitmer has something to say about this. The delight of many on the right in throwing around the word 'treason' -- with all of its connotations of punishment-by-death, with all of its Day-of-the-Rope white supremacist associations and daydreams of restoring Real America at the point of AR-15s, with the American right's tireless efforts to maintain an America in which any American, no matter how crazed or tainted, should be able to arm themselves with any gun in any place -- well, it's constant intent and intimidation.
It is unlikely to me that Trump will ever go on Twitter and deliver a direct order to kill someone or many someones, "it's go time, now." It is unlikely to me because, quite frankly, he already has conveyed those orders in language coded juuuuuuust enough.
posted by delfin at 8:55 AM on January 10 [12 favorites]
There are people who assume the president has more power than he actually does.
The Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency, explained
posted by kirkaracha at 8:58 AM on January 10 [4 favorites]
The Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency, explained
According to Brendan Nyhan, the Dartmouth political scientist who coined the term, the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency is "the belief that the president can achieve any political or policy objective if only he tries hard enough or uses the right tactics." In other words, the American president is functionally all-powerful, and whenever he can't get something done, it's because he's not trying hard enough, or not trying smart enough.Nyhan credits Matthew Yglesias for coining the"Green Lantern theory of geopolitics" term during the Bush years in this archived TCP Cafe post.
Nyhan further separates it into two variants: "the Reagan version of the Green Lantern Theory and the LBJ version of the Green Lantern Theory." The Reagan version, he says, holds that "if you only communicate well enough the public will rally to your side." The LBJ version says that "if the president only tried harder to win over congress they would vote through his legislative agenda." In both cases, Nyhan argues, "we've been sold a false bill of goods."
posted by kirkaracha at 8:58 AM on January 10 [4 favorites]
Of course it was Yglesias. So perfectly on-brand.
(I just got back from the centrist rally. Thousands of people holding hands and chanting, "Better things aren't possible!")
/derail
posted by Gadarene at 9:15 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]
(I just got back from the centrist rally. Thousands of people holding hands and chanting, "Better things aren't possible!")
/derail
posted by Gadarene at 9:15 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]
See, the funny thing about Green Lanternism is that a comics nerd can turn it right around.
A Green Lantern can do just about anything they can imagine, as long as they tint it in lime. Play racquetball with planetoids, whistle up a cloud of green Kryptonite gas to counter Superman, ward off all manner of attacks, whatever. One of the limitations of it is willpower, of course -- an overwhelming desire for a thing to happen. But the other major limitation is that it runs off of a BATTERY... with finite power levels. If a Lantern uses all of their charge up, or fails to recharge it properly, their ring can't do anything else and they're toast.
The counter-argument is that on many occasions, a POTUS does have enough "charge" (read as: influence, stature, persuasiveness, political gamesmanship, horse-trading acumen, political capital, whatever) to take significant steps towards getting something done... but chooses not to, because they believe doing so would "use up" too much of that energy. That a POTUS has limits on what they can strive for, what changes can be sought, what policy accomplishments they can voice desire for in a given term, and that "the time isn't right" is sufficient answer to those wondering why they're not acting in certain ways. That they think they need to keep their powder dry and their ring charged fully for something else, lest they be caught short in an emergency.
Somewhere in between "they can't do anything to push for change" and "they could, but they're saving that effort for other things," the truth lies.
posted by delfin at 10:03 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]
A Green Lantern can do just about anything they can imagine, as long as they tint it in lime. Play racquetball with planetoids, whistle up a cloud of green Kryptonite gas to counter Superman, ward off all manner of attacks, whatever. One of the limitations of it is willpower, of course -- an overwhelming desire for a thing to happen. But the other major limitation is that it runs off of a BATTERY... with finite power levels. If a Lantern uses all of their charge up, or fails to recharge it properly, their ring can't do anything else and they're toast.
The counter-argument is that on many occasions, a POTUS does have enough "charge" (read as: influence, stature, persuasiveness, political gamesmanship, horse-trading acumen, political capital, whatever) to take significant steps towards getting something done... but chooses not to, because they believe doing so would "use up" too much of that energy. That a POTUS has limits on what they can strive for, what changes can be sought, what policy accomplishments they can voice desire for in a given term, and that "the time isn't right" is sufficient answer to those wondering why they're not acting in certain ways. That they think they need to keep their powder dry and their ring charged fully for something else, lest they be caught short in an emergency.
Somewhere in between "they can't do anything to push for change" and "they could, but they're saving that effort for other things," the truth lies.
posted by delfin at 10:03 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]
I might have known that Green Lantern Presidency bullshit came from Matt Yglesias, a more worthless nepobaby piece of shit can't be found.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:28 AM on January 10 [5 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:28 AM on January 10 [5 favorites]
It can be both true that Yglesias kinda sucks bad and that a lot of people greatly overestimate the power of a President to do things legally, and that they often wrongly blame Presidents for things they have little to no control over.
posted by Justinian at 4:06 PM on January 10 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:06 PM on January 10 [5 favorites]
It could be, but it isn't, actually. You were right the first time.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:10 PM on January 10 [3 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:10 PM on January 10 [3 favorites]
... the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency is "the belief that the president can achieve any political or policy objective if only he tries hard enough or uses the right tactics."
That "any" in there is very strong. So strong, in fact, that I doubt anyone has ever actually held the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency, even implicitly. Certainly we don't have to assume that the President could accomplish literally anything they wanted in order to criticize a President for doing less than they actually could do, especially when there are actual, concrete proposals for doing something that the President doesn't act on.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 4:24 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]
That "any" in there is very strong. So strong, in fact, that I doubt anyone has ever actually held the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency, even implicitly. Certainly we don't have to assume that the President could accomplish literally anything they wanted in order to criticize a President for doing less than they actually could do, especially when there are actual, concrete proposals for doing something that the President doesn't act on.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 4:24 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]
A Green Lanterny refrain I've seen recently is insisting that Biden could and should have simply defied a SCOTUS ruling on some issue (eg abortion) or Obama should have unconstitutionally declared Garland to have been seated on the court without Senate approval. That Biden/Obama didn't do those things is then used as evidence that they are feckless.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:50 PM on January 10 [5 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 4:50 PM on January 10 [5 favorites]
The green latern stuff ignores all the additional power the president has been given in practice through institutional rot.
The system was designed with Congress as the primary check on the executive, but Congress is so broken that it is incapable of carrying out anything more complicated than haggling over which special interests are served in massive omnibus bills and running show trials for the media.
Because Congress isn't capable of creating useful legislation a lot of the functions of government have been transferred over to administrative organs controlled by the President. Congressional oversight is limited to approving senior hires which you can dodge with recess appointments.
The courts are the other check on the executive, but the supreme court is fucked and lower federal courts are increasingly stuffed with partisans.
A president can basically do whatever they want when it comes to foreign policy, and for domestic policy they will be continuing to pack the courts if they have a friendly senate and forum shopping.
Trump didn't achieve much because he didn't have the patience or enough competent staff to use all these mechanisms.
posted by zymil at 4:58 PM on January 10
The system was designed with Congress as the primary check on the executive, but Congress is so broken that it is incapable of carrying out anything more complicated than haggling over which special interests are served in massive omnibus bills and running show trials for the media.
Because Congress isn't capable of creating useful legislation a lot of the functions of government have been transferred over to administrative organs controlled by the President. Congressional oversight is limited to approving senior hires which you can dodge with recess appointments.
The courts are the other check on the executive, but the supreme court is fucked and lower federal courts are increasingly stuffed with partisans.
A president can basically do whatever they want when it comes to foreign policy, and for domestic policy they will be continuing to pack the courts if they have a friendly senate and forum shopping.
Trump didn't achieve much because he didn't have the patience or enough competent staff to use all these mechanisms.
posted by zymil at 4:58 PM on January 10
A Green Lanterny refrain I've seen recently is insisting that Biden could and should have simply defied a SCOTUS ruling on some issue (eg abortion) or Obama should have unconstitutionally declared Garland to have been seated on the court without Senate approval. That Biden/Obama didn't do those things is then used as evidence that they are feckless.
You've missed my point entirely. Even if a person is as confused as you suggest here -- thinking that Biden could defy the Dobbs decision, whatever that might mean -- even such a person doesn't think the President can do literally anything they want to do. The fact that some bozo or even a lot of bozos think the President can do a specific thing that the President can't actually do is at best extremely weak evidence that they endorse the Green Lantern Theory. Can the President just eliminate the debt? Can the President annex Canada? Can the President move the moon with his mind? Can the President bring George Washington back from the dead?
I accept that lots of people think the President has more power than the President actually has. Fine. But so what? That is a boring and obvious claim that doesn't do any actual cognitive work except to allow some people to sneer at, label, and conveniently dismiss some other people without taking them seriously or evaluating their complaints on the merits. "Oh! You think the President should be doing more with respect to Issue X? You're just a Green Lantern-ist."
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 6:31 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]
You've missed my point entirely. Even if a person is as confused as you suggest here -- thinking that Biden could defy the Dobbs decision, whatever that might mean -- even such a person doesn't think the President can do literally anything they want to do. The fact that some bozo or even a lot of bozos think the President can do a specific thing that the President can't actually do is at best extremely weak evidence that they endorse the Green Lantern Theory. Can the President just eliminate the debt? Can the President annex Canada? Can the President move the moon with his mind? Can the President bring George Washington back from the dead?
I accept that lots of people think the President has more power than the President actually has. Fine. But so what? That is a boring and obvious claim that doesn't do any actual cognitive work except to allow some people to sneer at, label, and conveniently dismiss some other people without taking them seriously or evaluating their complaints on the merits. "Oh! You think the President should be doing more with respect to Issue X? You're just a Green Lantern-ist."
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 6:31 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]
it definitely gets deployed as a bad-faith way to shut down genuine frustrations about lack of action, but people really do sometimes seem to think that when any policy is stymied or not pursued the cause must be a lack of will, rather than coming up against some other intervening circumstance, and a president with sufficient willpower could have found a way. It's not quite the same as people being misinformed that the President really can just do something- it's Green Lanterning when people are told that he can't and just insist that he could if he really wanted to. When people say "oh, he didn't have a working majority, makes sense" vs "Biden was too squeamish to quietly threaten to have Joe Manchin's child indicted to secure his vote." (the latter a real thing some people claim to believe)
(this isn't just a thing on the left, a lot of Trump's appeal in 2016 came from people believing that elected Republicans were all secretly RINOs but Trump was a True Believer and avatar of their will so surely he'd be able to Get Things Done. Not just that he was smarter or a better dealmaker but that he was, somehow, Bigger and Stronger)
posted by BungaDunga at 7:56 PM on January 10
(this isn't just a thing on the left, a lot of Trump's appeal in 2016 came from people believing that elected Republicans were all secretly RINOs but Trump was a True Believer and avatar of their will so surely he'd be able to Get Things Done. Not just that he was smarter or a better dealmaker but that he was, somehow, Bigger and Stronger)
posted by BungaDunga at 7:56 PM on January 10
This Green Lantern nonsense is a total derail, but people believe everything imaginable:
Can the President just eliminate the debt?
Trillion dollar coin.
Can the President annex Canada?
Canada, maybe. Greenland, defo.
Can the President move the moon with his mind?
Ehhhh, this one is a bit far-fetched, but I'm sure with the help of some space lasers, people would be on board.
Can the President bring George Washington back from the dead?
Washington, I'm not sure about, but JFK Jr? Absolutely.
EDIT: This is not a swipe at you, Jonathan Livengood. I don't think you are wrong, just that people are weird as hell.
posted by Literaryhero at 8:44 PM on January 10 [4 favorites]
Can the President just eliminate the debt?
Trillion dollar coin.
Can the President annex Canada?
Canada, maybe. Greenland, defo.
Can the President move the moon with his mind?
Ehhhh, this one is a bit far-fetched, but I'm sure with the help of some space lasers, people would be on board.
Can the President bring George Washington back from the dead?
Washington, I'm not sure about, but JFK Jr? Absolutely.
EDIT: This is not a swipe at you, Jonathan Livengood. I don't think you are wrong, just that people are weird as hell.
posted by Literaryhero at 8:44 PM on January 10 [4 favorites]
I recall people on this site criticizing President Obama not getting things done like LBJ, while eliding that LBJ had large majorities in both houses of Congress and Obama had closer to 50-50.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:19 PM on January 10 [6 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 9:19 PM on January 10 [6 favorites]
I've seen that except with FDR rather than LBJ, It's definitely a mystery why somebody like FDR with a majority of 80%+ could do things that a guy with a 50/50 senate could not, yes.
posted by Justinian at 9:40 PM on January 10 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 9:40 PM on January 10 [6 favorites]
Can the President just eliminate the debt?
Trillion dollar coin.
It's worth noting that the trillion dollar coin in no way is intended to eliminate (or even reduce) the debt or deficit or anything like that. It's just a sneaky way of getting around the debt ceiling not being raised. The debt ceiling limits the amount of money the government can borrow and this is that One Weird Trick that lets the government borrow money without technically borrowing it. Yes, it's stupid. It might not even be constitutional. The same is true of the debt ceiling.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 1:28 PM on January 16 [7 favorites]
Yeah, the debt ceiling is monumentally stupid (if you assume the GOP operates in good faith, lol). So it makes sense that a potential solution would also be stupid and a not dissimilar kind of bad faith (though with much better reason).
posted by VTX at 8:45 PM on January 20 [1 favorite]
posted by VTX at 8:45 PM on January 20 [1 favorite]
The "Debt Ceiling" is a perfect example of how the Republican Party operates - take one facet, no matter how inconsequential, of a complex issue and use that as the cudgel with which to beat on your opponents. Regardless what the best policy decision might be, use that cudgel and just beat your opponents and beat them again and again.
Frankly its boring and stupid and, sadly, very effective because a lot of people are stupid/don't have the patience or 'bandwidth' to tackle a complex issue and have been told not to trust anyone who tells them anything about the issue...
posted by From Bklyn at 4:10 AM on January 21 [1 favorite]
Frankly its boring and stupid and, sadly, very effective because a lot of people are stupid/don't have the patience or 'bandwidth' to tackle a complex issue and have been told not to trust anyone who tells them anything about the issue...
posted by From Bklyn at 4:10 AM on January 21 [1 favorite]
Right! And now we're debating about whether to raise the debt ceiling and how far instead screaming about how this stupid made up thing exists for no real reason.
posted by VTX at 7:46 PM on January 22 [2 favorites]
posted by VTX at 7:46 PM on January 22 [2 favorites]
« Older Tax me now! | i've heard of marble madness but 2: Electric... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Asking for a friend.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 11:26 AM on January 9 [70 favorites]