Former President Donald Trump’s attorney on Thursday argued that a president could order the assassination of his political rival and stage a military coup without being prosecuted for it.
Jack Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, made the “absolute immunity” argument in a Supreme Court hearing in the Department of Justice election interference case against the former president. Trump’s team has repeatedly claimed that the ex-president can’t be prosecuted for “official acts” he did while in office.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer, “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?”
“That could well be an official act,” Sauer responded.
Sotomayor seemed taken aback at that line of reasoning.
…
“How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup?” Kagan asked.
“I think it would depend on the circumstances,” Sauer said.
They should have asked if the president can order the assassination of a Supreme Court Judge or a senator. Would love the justification.
And don’t even frame it as a nameless hypothetical. Get specific.
“Are you arguing that Joe Biden could order the assassination of Clarence Thomas and Donald Trump, and if the Democratic Senate doesn’t convict on impeachment, he gets away with it?”
I would pay good money for one of them to ask that exact question, but sadly, I’m a little too poor to buy my own SCOTUS justice. Maybe we could start a gofundme and crowdsource it?
I got 5 on it
I’d put in the remaining $5 needed for Thomas to be bought
They’re arguing this for a reason
Because Trump wants to get re-elected (and he probably fucking will because Americans are dumbasses and Trump is thrashing Biden in the polls right now) and when he does he’s going to assassinate political rivals.
Huh. Well here’s a though: as Biden’s last act as president, he should just go ahead and order the assassination of Trump. It’ll rid us of Trump, and force the matter into the SCOTUS who will then need to establish precedent case law stating specifically that US presidents aren’t allowed to have political rivals assassinated… cuz apparently that’s necessary. >_<
Why not just “retire” certain members of SCOTUS first. These people should be very afraid when the new president gets into office with these rules.
Actually I suppose that would be pretty easy…
To justices that think it’s ok for presidents to order the assassination of rivals, Biden can say:
"You should retire. If you do not retire, I have the power to get rid of you permanently. Your choice. "
Ah, playing the fascist game against actual fascists. I wonder who will win that game. Hint: it’s not the non fascists.
Well clearly this “They go low, we go high” shit isn’t fucking working
You can’t fold after you are all in. Gotta play the hand.
If I were Biden and the Supreme Court ruled it’s legal, first thing I’d do is put Trump and every justice that ruled in favor in a CIA black site. Then I’d stack the court with justices that would rule it was illegal. Because that shit cannot stand.
I mean, there is no legal reason that Biden could not just put forth more candidates for the supreme court, right now.
Edit: The only actual reason is because Biden is a coward.
There is no constitutional reason it can’t be amended, but there is a statutory reason Biden can’t act unilaterally on that: the Judiciary Act of 1869 limits the SCOTUS to nine members.
Congress would have to let him.
Moscow Mitch piped up and preeminently accused Biden of ‘packing the court’, were he to increase the number of justices.
Really rich statement given Mitch is the real packer.
Coward? What is it for him to fear?
I’m not sure. As I said, there is no actual reason for him to not put forward more justices for the Supreme Court.
What does this even mean? Put them forward where?
Put them forward as in nominate them for approval to the bench
Approval to what? There are no open seats
Increase the size to 13 or something
Has anyone played Secret Hitler? This is literally Trump asking the liberals for that sweet, sweet bullet.
“I think it would depend on the circumstances.” That doesn’t sound very absolute then, if it depends. “Absolute” means absolute, not “well actually it would depend.” I think they have a particular set of use cases in mind for this “absolute immunity” thing.
I was about to say, you’re using language that sounds very different from “absolute” there, buddy. Absolute is an “all or nothing” word, you can’t say “well it’s absolute immunity but only for certain things”.
Ok, but has anyone checked to be sure that “Jack Sauer” is his real name? That sounds like a fake name a moron would make up. Like Eric Trump is wearing a moustache and trying to argue before the court to win his dad’s affection.
“I’m not a lawyer, I just pretend to be one when dad asks”
EDIT: Downvote all you like, but it’s a matter of fact, not opinion.
Presidents can and have assassinated US citizens.
Indeed, and the legality has been challenged by the ACLU. Although they could not pursue to issue a condemnation.
The present case would be an excellent opportunity to resolve the question of whether or not a President is entitled to kill a US citizen and setup better checks and balances (because, in the case of Obama, there were definitely some, but those were disputable).
