Biden delivered remarks from the Oval Office outlining his decision not to seek reelection, his first on-camera remarks since making that announcement on Sunday. In addition to explaining why he is ending his candidacy, he listed off his priorities for his remaining time as president.
“And I’m going to call for Supreme Court reform, because this is critical to our democracy,” Biden said.
Multiple outlets have reported that Biden is considering proposals to establish term limits for Supreme Court justices and an enforceable ethics code for those on the high court.
If I understand the supreme court correctly, Biden could just shoot Roberts, Alito and Thomas and call it court reform, right? That makes it an official act?
Ironically if he did that and appointed new liberal justices, there’s a good chance the new Court would overturn this Court’s decision, and he could be convicted of murder and probably violating several other federal laws for that act.
Worth it.
Come on, Joe! Go out with a bang!
Joe bang!
He’d be dead before the sentencing anyway. Take one for the team Joe!
Plus, it can’t be that hard to defend him with some perfectly reasonable doubts. A jury wouldn’t convict him for doing the right thing.
Also they’d have Kamala “Official Acts” Harris to deal with if they convicted him.
I think there is something in the constitution about not being able to charge someone criminally for something retroactively, that wasn’t a crime at the time it was committed.
Found it! Article 1, section 9, clause 3.
Ex post facto is for if a new law is passed making something a crime, and the act was committed before its passage. This is all about interpretation of already passed law. It’s basically the justices saying that this was against the law the whole time. Ex post facto doesn’t apply here.
Kamala could pardon him. I don’t think very many of their voters would mind.
The president is currently above the law, so the constitution is as good as toilet paper.
deleted by creator
No laws have been changed. Court decisions are not considered the passage of a law, so ex post facto doesn’t apply. Changes to how laws are interpreted don’t factor into ex post facto considerations.
Yeah, I deleted the comment a while ago when I read another response explaining that. TIL!
No need to do it himself. Order assassins to do it as an official act, then immediately pardon them.
Well, he would need a volunteer that way, then he writes them a pardon, because the order is still illegal and they can refuse it, it just doesn’t matter to him.
Much easier to just buy a shotgun, call it Official Acts, and go to town.
I think it’s traditional to say “Seal Team 6” rather than “assassins” at this point.
That is only for very specific people. That part is a secret and they don’t tell you who. But I’m certain Biden isn’t on that list.
I would chance it.
No, because he’s not a Republican.
However, the justices that make that distinction relevant would no longer be able to do so?
I think the remainder would be against it regardless.
That’s correct
So, to answer seriously: if it’s an explicit presidential power he gets total personal immunity, although the office can still be restricted. If it’s an official act, he’s presumed to have personal immunity unless the prosecutor can argue that there’s no way that not having immunity could get in the way of doing the job of president, and they’re not allowed to use motivation to make the case.
The president isn’t given the explicit power to reform the courts.
He’s given explicit power to command the armed forces, but the rules of the armed forces are decided by Congress.
So it’s a question arguing how “the president can’t kill members of the judiciary” doesn’t hinder the power of the executive branch without referencing why the president is killing them.
Biden is allowed to kill Supreme Court justices because he might need to Navy SEAL people for security reasons. Allowing litigation on Biden’s SEAL powers would irreparably restrict Biden’s agency as commander in chief and would literally cause a 9/11
Would it literally? Like hijacked foreign planes flying into buildings? Like invading countries for oil? Literally?
Yes
The argument that the Supreme Court made pretty boils down to “if you let the president go to trial for Navy SEALing a Supreme Court Justice, then the chilling effect of potential litigation would make the president too scared to kill Osama Bin Laden. Therefore the president has legal immunity when Navy SEALing Supreme Court justices”.
So yes, the Supreme Court actually believes that litigating a president could literally cause another 9/11.
I’m horrified to agree that that’s actually a valid argument.
Judicial review of the established presidential power to direct the military to kill, ahem, “designate as a clear and immediate threat”, specific individuals in an emergency to protect the country would legitimately undermine the presidents power to defend the integrity of the nation.
Goddamn was that a stupid fucking ruling.
Who’s gonna vote to say it wasn’t official afterwards?
6 or so SC justices?
Oh no, here I go, acting officially again.
perhaps