The Tremendous Trump Thread - Etterspill (Les førstepost)

[JK22]

SilverShaded skrev (25 minutter siden):

På den annen side må vel det samme gjelde den andre veien, hans lovede forfølgelse av Biden vil også bli vanskeligere.

Tror du Trump kommer til å bry seg om dette? Ved å ha absolutt immunitet er man fritt til å forbryte seg mot gjeldende lov, også høyesterettsavgjørelsens påbud som kan lett ignoreres/tilbakevises på prinsippet om det er en "uoffisiell" eller "offisiell" handling, han kan nemlig arrestere og fengsle Biden uten å straffes når senatet ikke er i stand til å opptre samlet, eller kan avvises fordi han har immunitet. Dette har ikke Roberts forstått; hvis Trump kontrollere senatet, er han i praksis straffritt og hvis senatet skulle gjøre seg gjeldende, kan Trump henvise til hans absolutte immunitet. 

Det er hvorfor absolutt immunitet hadde vært helt utenkelig. Engelskmennene hadde lært bitre erfaringer av dette, først de kongelige-aristokratiske sammenstøtene, deretter de kongelige-parlamentariske sammenstøtene og slutten den ærefulle revolusjonen i 1688 da det opprinnelige monarkiet nedlegges og erstattes med et konstitusjonelt monarki med en blanding av valg og arv i arvefølgeprosess. I mange århundrer hadde det vært evig strid mellom kongen som forlagt forrang i møte med folk som derimot forlagt likeverdighet og rettsvern. 

Dette var de amerikanske grunnlovsfedrene helt innforstått med. Faktisk, de gjort jo opprør fordi de vil ha "engelskmennenes rettigheter". 

[SilverShaded]

JK22 skrev (3 minutter siden):

Tror du Trump kommer til å bry seg om dette? /snip

 

Vel...en sak mot Biden vil følge den samme prosedyren som Trump sin sak. Dvs. at den vil havne på bordet til Høyesterett til slutt. Da må samme hensyn gjelde, siden dagens avgjørelse setter en viktig presedens.

[JK22]

SilverShaded skrev (5 minutter siden):

Vel...en sak mot Biden vil følge den samme prosedyren som Trump sin sak. Dvs. at den vil havne på bordet til Høyesterett til slutt. Da må samme hensyn gjelde, siden dagens avgjørelse setter en viktig presedens.

Nei. Det vil ta tid.

"Alle" vet at man kan ikke gi statsoverhodet en immunitet som tillatt øyeblikkelig maktbruk fordi en rettsprosess med en tidskrevende prosedyre vil bli ineffektiv - dette har vært sett altfor mange ganger. Det er ikke den dømmende kraften som setter presedenser når det er snakk om maktbruk, det er den utøvende kraften - som må på forhold rettet seg etter den dømmende kraftens besluttede kriterier. Roberts gjort ingenting av dette; han har ingen tydelig definisjon på hva som er "uoffisiell", og man kunne se at de andre dommerne som Thomas er noe forvirret av dette, når de prøver å forklare uten å overbevise. 

I slike saker må den utøvende makten ikke ha handlingsfrihet som tillatt ugjenopprettlige maktmisbruk og maktovergrep som kan sette den dømmende makten i sterk disfavør - dette var sett i flere land ganske nylig (tjue år) - et av disse er Russland, hvor domstolene endt opp med å bli helt maktløst. Trump kan dermed bare gjøre som han vil. Det tok nemlig tre år mellom 6. januar 2021 og 1. juli 2024. Da er Biden sannsynlig henrettet og hans familie fordrevet før høyesteretten kan gripe inn... 

Det er maktbruk som setter presedenser. 

[JK22]

'Sophomoric and foolish': Harvard Law professor rips into Chief Justice's immunity logic

Harvard University's Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe unleashed a ferocious attack on the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court after the ruling in Donald Trump's immunity case Monday.

Tribe cited Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent, in which she called the decision a "five-alarm-fire for self-government under democracy. The reason is that the court was really flying the flag of the Constitution upside down."

Chief Justice John Roberts and five other justices ruled that a president has immunity for core official actions carried out while in office, though was constituted official was for a lower court to decide.

"It is worse to use the cloak of presidential authority to commit ordinary crimes for which the rest of us would go to jail than it is to do things that are purely personal," Tribe lamented on MSNBC.

"So, the sliver that has been left to Jack Smith, that is taking the threads of this [Jan. 6] indictment, and in a hearing before Judge Chutkan, trying to show which ones, like contacts with Rudy Giuliani, or certain discussions with state officials. Which ones are truly private? That's really a fig leaf."

The professor went on to say that, by stating immunity only relates to official actions, the ruling is meant to appear like the court tapping "itself on the shoulder and [saying] we're not granting absolute immunity.

"I beg to differ. For all practical purposes, this is absolute immunity. It's dangerous, and it means we have to be even more careful. never to elect a president who would think, let alone say, he wants to be a dictator on day one."

Tribe specifically pointed out that the president could take a bribe, for example, if he claims that it is an official act as a president.

He pointed to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who "established a degree of independence" with her partial dissent on a piece of the ruling.

"You can't even use evidence of the way the president's core powers have been used," Tribe said of the ideals. "So, if, for example, a bribe is offered for the president to exercise a core power like a pardon, you might be able to show that money passed hands, but you can't introduce evidence of that, of the pardon that ultimately resulted, because that is one of the president's core powers.

"It makes no sense."

He pointed to Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Jackson, who "really rip to shred the threadbare, I'm afraid to say, almost sophomoric and foolish arguments by the chief justice of the United States fantasizing that even though all presidents in our past have assumed that they would be subject to criminal prosecution even for misconduct that was a crime in interacting with their own justice department.

"After all, that's what Nixon did and why he needed a pardon. Even though presidents have assumed that and it hasn't crippled the presidency, maybe presidents would be too cautious unless they were granted this new and unprecedented immunity."

The danger, as cited by the justices, is that presidents will not be deterred by criminal law, he said.

'They’re just making it up': Claire McCaskill sounds off on ‘BS’ Supreme Court immunity ruling | Watch (msn.com)

'They’re just making it up': Claire McCaskill sounds off on ‘BS’ Supreme Court immunity ruling

 

[SilverShaded]

@JK22 Her skjønner jeg virkelig ikke hva du mener med alt snakket om maktmisbruk. Antyder du at han vil beordre Biden arrestert og kastet i fengsel uten lov og dom, og henrettet ?? Så dum tror jeg selv ikke DT er. Det du skisserer er jo fullstendig Wild West, et absolutt lpvløst USA, og det nekter jeg å tro på.

Endret mandag kl 22:26 av SilverShaded

[JK22]

 

SilverShaded skrev (14 minutter siden):

@JK22 Her skjønner jeg virkelig ikke hva du mener med alt snakket om maktmisbruk. Antyder du at han vil beordre Biden arrestert og kastet i fengsel uten lov og dom, og henrettet ?? Så dum tror jeg selv ikke DT er.

Ja. For det er hva absolutt immunitet innbar. Absolutt immunitet betyr restriksjonsfri maktbruk uten å respektere lov og rett - og ved å være en enmannsregjering med kontroll over justisdepartementet og rettsapparatet - og ved å skifte ut byråkrater og administrative som jurister med hans egne folk man vet vil være mer lojalt mot ham enn mot staten - er det mulig for Trump å sende en slik ordre, slik det har hendt mange ganger verden rundt. Hva tror du hadde hendt i Putins land? 

Når skaden er gjort, er det for sent. Da har maktbruken satt uutslettelig presedenser som ikke kan viskes bort uten meget alvorlige senvirkninger - og da er politisk vold og deretter organisert vold som kollaps av styre og stell uunngåelig. For den dømmende maktens rolle er å forhindre fremfor å reparere når det gjelder et politisk system. 

Dette maktet ikke Roberts å fatte, og han har tre dommerne som i åpen offentlighet avslørt at de holdt ham i dyp forakt - de har endog hentet fram ordet "treason", som kanskje det sterkeste ordet som noensinne er uttrykt i hele den amerikanske høyesterettshistorien. 

Thomas nylig hadde dessuten erklært at han vil avskaffe Robinson-dommen fra 1962, slik at vi kan ha moralpoliti, moralkontroll og gjenopplivede morallover som var fremherskende fram til den gang, Warren som sto for avgjørelsen den gang, etablere praksisen med statuslov som straffgrunnlag - slik at ingen kunne straffes for sin natur, sitt utseende, sin væremåte eller hva de gjør; vet du at latinamerikanerne var også forbudt fra å ha seksuell kontakt med hvite? Vet du at det var på mange steder drapstillatelse på minoritetsfolk inkludert de fargede den gang? Dette viser at Thomas kanskje dypest innerst hatet hans egne folk. 

Og det er slike folk man har i høyesteretten som ikke lenge bryr seg om å beskytte USA! 

Endret mandag kl 22:38 av JK22

[AtterEnBruker]

frohmage skrev (2 timer siden):

Det er rart hvordan en del nordmenn hevder at Trump er utsatt for en juridisk heksejakt samtidig som de vil ha strenge straffer for norske politikere i pendlerboligsaken.

"Every accusation is a confession".

[JK22]

Opinion: With Chevron overturned, Americans’ faith in government will sink even further (msn.com)

On Friday, the Supreme Court overturned the 1984 decision Chevron v. NRDC, critical in American regulatory policy. Under Chevron, courts were to defer to federal agency interpretations of statutes, unless the statutes themselves spoke directly to policy questions and as long as the agency interpretations were reasonable.

The Chevron decision originally allowed a regulation passed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Ronald Reagan to stay in place. While the decision originally cheered supporters of deregulation (the regulation in question in the lawsuit gave industry more flexibility in complying with EPA rules), over time it became a top target for opponents of regulation. Because Chevron recommended deference to agencies, courts regularly cited it in supporting the regulatory efforts of later administrations.

In the 40 years since Chevron, regulation has continued its trajectory, begun in the 1970s, as an increasingly prominent policymaking tool. This has been particularly true in the implementation of progressive policy aims such as combating pollution and climate change, protecting workers from workplace hazards and safeguarding the financial system. But it also has been used to advance conservative priorities by restricting immigration and advancing homeland security.

The result of the boom in regulation has been cleaner air and water and safer workplaces, among many other things. Regulations have also imposed significant costs on the economy, but most studies have shown that the benefits of regulation have significantly outweighed their costs.

Over the same period, however, American trust in government has declined. It is tempting to argue that the growth in regulation has played a role in fueling this negative public perception of government. But digging underneath the data reveals that the relationship is far more complicated. Agency actions may be one of the few things about government that people do like.

First of all, congressional approval, which has never been high — between 30 percent and 50 percent back when trust in government was much greater — is now at a disastrous 16 percent. The current and previous presidents have had historically low approval ratings. Conversely, Americans have favorable views of most federal agencies. (OK, not the Internal Revenue Service.)

Much of the thinking behind the repeal of Chevron deference is that it will force Congress to pass more specific laws addressing public policy concerns by making it harder for agencies to regulate. There are two gaping holes in this logic. First, as shown in the data cited above, we would be moving policymaking from a part of government that people trust and approve of to the one that they have the least faith in. Second, there is no reason to believe that Congress will react to this by becoming more responsible.

Dysfunction in Congress is obvious, particularly in the current session, highlighted by the battles over which a Republican will serve as Speaker of the House. The budgetary process — arguably Congress’s most important function — is, according to experts across the ideological spectrum, broken. And even if you believe that the congressional chaos of the past few years is irrelevant or temporary, there is also the problem of congressional capacity.

Congress delegates decisionmaking to agencies in part because it doesn’t have the expertise to make the decisions on its own. The House itself has become too small, as population growth means that the number of citizens represented by each member has grown from 210,000 in the early 20th century to 762,000 today.

Enlarging the House of Representatives and expanding the resources available to Congress are worthwhile endeavors, but they are unlikely to close the gap in expertise between the national legislature and executive branch agencies. And they do nothing either to reduce the likelihood of dysfunction in Congress or to change the incentive Congress has of delegating politically painful decisions to agencies (which they can then criticize for making those decisions).

There may be a universe out there where restricting agencies’ abilities to make policy decisions will lead to a democratically responsive Congress assuming those responsibilities and producing public trust in the policymaking process. But in our universe, it is far more likely that the Supreme Court’s decision will mean that pressing public problems take longer to be solved — or never get solved at all — and thus faith in government takes yet another blow.

Republikanerne hyllet ødeleggelsen av Chevronavgjørelsen fra 1984, men samtidig demonstrert disse at de bare ganske enkelt hadde ikke fulgt med på timen; vi har statsadministrasjon som innbar at man har et stort administrativt apparat som ikke bare består av byråkrater, men også statsansatte med den nødvendige ekspertise, hyrede ekspertpersonell, og så videre og videre, med et omfattende reguleringsverk som kunne ha flere millioner ulike bestemmelser delt opp i flere titusener ulike felter fordi staten bare blir mer og mer omfattende med tiden. Dette skyldes ikke at staten skulle overta, men at det er blitt langt mer å holde styr på. 

Det disse republikanske politikerne ikke forstår, er at det vil øke arbeidspresset på dem fordi det er 762,000 personer per kongressmedlem - gjennomsnittlig - og det kan aktuelt åpner for vanstell og korrupsjon. De er simpelt ikke kapabelt for å gjøre arbeidet som statsadministrasjonen er normalt satt på, og kan ikke gjennomføre deres vedtak raskt eller effektiv nok, eller gjøre det uten å skape alvorlige forviklinger - hele USA administratives gjennom Chevronprosedyren. Det de oppnå, er å skape ufattelige ødeleggelser som kan lede til omfattende folkelig misnøye, spesielt hvis de skulle oppleve kaos og rot samt urettferdighet som forverrelse av levetilstandene. 

Det vil bli mange flere skandaler, menneskeliv og naturliv vil går tapt som et resultat. 

The Supreme Court just limited federal power. Health care is feeling the shockwaves (msn.com)

The Supreme Court just limited federal power. Health care is feeling the shockwaves

A landmark Supreme Court decision that reins in federal agencies’ authority is expected to hold dramatic consequences for the nation’s healthcare system, calling into question government rules on anything from consumer protections for patients to drug safety to nursing home care.

The June 28 decision overturns a 1984 precedent that said courts should give deference to federal agencies in legal challenges over their regulatory or scientific decisions. Instead of giving priority to agencies, courts will now exercise their own independent judgment about what Congress intended when drafting a particular law.

The ruling will likely have seismic ramifications for health policy. A flood of litigation -- with plaintiffs like small businesses, drugmakers, and hospitals challenging regulations they say aren’t specified in the law -- could leave the country with a patchwork of disparate health regulations varying by location.

Agencies such as the FDA are likely to be far more cautious in drafting regulations, Congress is expected to take more time fleshing out legislation to avoid legal challenges, and judges will be more apt to overrule current and future regulations.

Health policy leaders say patients, providers, and health systems should brace for more uncertainty and less stability in the healthcare system. Even routine government functions such as deciding the rate to pay doctors for treating Medicare beneficiaries could become embroiled in long legal battles that disrupt patient care or strain providers to adapt.

Groups that oppose a regulation could search for and secure partisan judges to roll back agency decision-making, said Andrew Twinamatsiko, director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute. One example could be challenges to the FDA’s approval of a medication used in abortions, which survived a Supreme Court challenge this term on a technicality.

“Judges will be more emboldened to second-guess agencies,” he said. “It’s going to open agencies up to attacks.”

Regulations are effectively the technical instructions for laws written by Congress. Federal agency staffers with knowledge related to law -- say, in drugs that treat rare diseases or health care for seniors -- decide how to translate Congress’ words into action with input from industry, advocates, and the public.

Up until now, when agencies issued a regulation, a single rule typically applied nationwide. Following the high court ruling, however, lawsuits filed in more than one jurisdiction could result in contradictory rulings and regulatory requirements -- meaning healthcare policies for patients, providers, or insurers could differ greatly from one area to another.

One circuit may uphold a regulation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, while other circuits may take different views.

“You could have eight or nine of 11 different views of the courts,” said William Buzbee, a professor at Georgetown Law.

A court in one circuit could issue a nationwide injunction to enforce its interpretation while another circuit disagrees, said Maura Monaghan, a partner at Debevoise & Plimpton. Few cases are taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, which could leave clashing directives in place for many years.

In the immediate future, health policy leaders say agencies should brace for more litigation over controversial initiatives. A requirement that most Affordable Care Act health plans cover preventive services, for example, is already being litigated. Multiple challenges to the mandate could mean different coverage requirements for preventive care depending on where a consumer lives.

Drugmakers have sued to try to stop the Biden administration from implementing a federal law that forces makers of the most expensive drugs to negotiate prices with Medicare -- a key cog in President Joe Biden’s effort to lower drug prices and control healthcare costs.

Parts of the healthcare industry may take on reimbursement rates for doctors that are set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services because those specific rates aren’t written into law. The agency issues rules updating payment rates in Medicare, a health insurance program for people 65 or older and younger people with disabilities. Groups representing doctors and hospitals regularly flock to Washington, D.C., to lobby against trims to their payment rates.

And providers, including those backed by deep-pocketed investors, have sued to block federal surprise-billing legislation. The No Surprises Act, which passed in 2020 and took effect for most people in 2022, aims to protect patients from unexpected, out-of-network medical bills, especially in emergencies. The high court’s ruling is expected to spur more litigation over its implementation.

“This really is going to create a tectonic change in the administrative regulatory landscape,” Twinamatsiko said. “The approach since 1984 has created stability. When the FDA or CDC adopt regulations, they know those regulations will be respected. That has been taken back.”

Industry groups, including the American Hospital Association and AHIP, an insurers’ trade group, declined to comment.

Agencies such as the FDA that take advantage of their regulatory authority to make specific decisions, such as the granting of exclusive marketing rights upon approval of a drug, will be vulnerable. The reason: Many of their decisions require discretion as opposed to being explicitly defined by federal law, said Joseph Ross, a professor of medicine and public health at Yale School of Medicine.

“The legislation that guides much of the work in the health space, such as FDA and CMS, is not prescriptive,” he said.

In fact, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf said in an episode of the “Healthcare Unfiltered” podcast last year that he was “very worried” about the disruption from judges overruling his agency’s scientific decisions.

The high court’s ruling will be especially significant for the nation’s federal health agencies because their regulations are often complex, creating the opportunity for more pitched legal battles.

Challenges that may not have succeeded in courts because of the deference to agencies could now find more favorable outcomes.

“A whole host of existing regulations could be vulnerable,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF.

Other consequences are possible. Congress may attempt to flesh out more details when drafting legislation to avoid challenges -- an approach that may increase partisan standoffs and slow down an already glacial pace in passing legislation, Levitt said.

Agencies are expected to be far more cautious in writing regulations to be sure they don’t go beyond the contours of the law.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision overturned Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which held that courts should generally back a federal agency’s statutory interpretation as long as it was reasonable. Republicans have largely praised the new ruling as necessary for ensuring agencies don’t overstep their authority, while Democrats said in the aftermath of the decision that it amounts to a judicial power grab.

Hvilken er korrekt, 28. juni-avgjørelsen er det første konstitusjonsbruddet begått av Roberts fordi den tok bort autoriteten fra kongressen ved å sette reguleringene - som er utsendt av kongressen med basis i dens status som lovgivende makt - under den dømmende makten, som tillatt folk fra utenfor gå inn og overstyre/sabotere reguleringer. Kongressen vil bli seriøst overbelastet samtidig som statsadministrasjonen vil få meget seriøse problemer. Og flere tusen dommerne vil få gode grunner til å rase mot Roberts fordi han kan ha gjort disses arbeid uoverkommelig.

I mellomtiden vil det amerikanske folket lider. 

Endret mandag kl 23:07 av JK22

[SilverShaded]

JK22 skrev (22 minutter siden):

 

Ja. For det er hva absolutt immunitet innbar. Absolutt immunitet betyr restriksjonsfri maktbruk uten å respektere lov og rett - og ved å være en enmannsregjering med kontroll over justisdepartementet og rettsapparatet - og ved å skifte ut byråkrater og administrative som jurister med hans egne folk man vet vil være mer lojalt mot ham enn mot staten - er det mulig for Trump å sende en slik ordre, slik det har hendt mange ganger verden rundt. Hva tror du hadde hendt i Putins land? 

Når skaden er gjort, er det for sent. Da har maktbruken satt uutslettelig presedenser som ikke kan viskes bort uten meget alvorlige senvirkninger - og da er politisk vold og deretter organisert vold som kollaps av styre og stell uunngåelig. For den dømmende maktens rolle er å forhindre fremfor å reparere når det gjelder et politisk system. 

Dette maktet ikke Roberts å fatte, og han har tre dommerne som i åpen offentlighet avslørt at de holdt ham i dyp forakt - de har endog hentet fram ordet "treason", som kanskje det sterkeste ordet som noensinne er uttrykt i hele den amerikanske høyesterettshistorien. 

Thomas nylig hadde dessuten erklært at han vil avskaffe Robinson-dommen fra 1962, slik at vi kan ha moralpoliti, moralkontroll og gjenopplivede morallover som var fremherskende fram til den gang, Warren som sto for avgjørelsen den gang, etablere praksisen med statuslov som straffgrunnlag - slik at ingen kunne straffes for sin natur, sitt utseende, sin væremåte eller hva de gjør; vet du at latinamerikanerne var også forbudt fra å ha seksuell kontakt med hvite? Vet du at det var på mange steder drapstillatelse på minoritetsfolk inkludert de fargede den gang? Dette viser at Thomas kanskje dypest innerst hatet hans egne folk. 

Og det er slike folk man har i høyesteretten som ikke lenge bryr seg om å beskytte USA! 

Jeg mener du drar det alt for langt. For det første tror jeg ikke han klarer å skape en fullstendig lovløs  stat på bare 4 år, for det er ikke gjort med et pennestrøk. For det andre tror jeg ikke selv Trump klarer å få alt av politi og rettsvesen med på slik vold og lovløshet. For det tredje tror jeg slike tilstander vil føre til ramaskrik i samfunnet, USA vil våkne og se skriften på veggen. Opprør og borgerkrig vil ikke gagne verken Trump's imperium eller noen annen form for industri eller levevei. Han kan ikke arrestere eller skyte alle som opponerer. Han er ikke tjent med å ødelegge hele samfunnet.

Endret mandag kl 22:59 av SilverShaded

[JK22]

SilverShaded skrev (10 minutter siden):

Jeg mener du drar det alt for langt. For det første tror jeg ikke han klarer å skape en fullstendig lovløs  stat på bare 4 år, for det er ikke gjort med et pennestrøk. For det andre tror jeg ikke selv Trump klarer å få alt av politi og rettsvesen med på slik vold og lovløshet. For det tredje tror jeg slike tilstander vil føre til ramaskrik i samfunnet, USA vil våkne og se skriften på veggen. Opprør og borgerkrig vil ikke gagne verken Trump's imperium eller noen annen form for industri eller levevei. Han kan ikke arrestere eller skyte alle som opponerer. Han er ikke tjent med å ødelegge hele samfunnet.

JA. 

Trump er ikke interessant i dagens samfunn, han vil egentlig ha samfunnet som fantes i hans ungdoms tid. Han er i blott mangel på konsekvensvurdering, og han har flere millioner tilhengere som er villig til å sette på styr det amerikanske demokratiet, som i virkeligheten er basert på en tolkning av en konstitusjon, som kan ha mistet mye av sin legitimiteten som et resultat av 1. juli-avgjørelsen. Han bryr seg ikke om penger, imperium eller makt - alt han bryr seg om er hans selvbilde og ærgjerrighet. Dessuten er han for gammel til å bry seg om fremtiden; borgerkrig kan skje, i likhet med et kapitalistisk kollaps som kan lede til verdenshistoriens første sanne kommunistregime en gang i dette århundret - i selveste USA. 

Det tok mye kortere tid enn 4 år å "skape" en "lovløs stat". For Trump og hans folk er det vi definerer som lovløshet, lovverk for dem. 

[SilverShaded]

JK22 skrev (11 minutter siden):

JA. 

Trump er ikke interessant i dagens samfunn, han vil egentlig ha samfunnet som fantes i hans ungdoms tid. Han er i blott mangel på konsekvensvurdering, og han har flere millioner tilhengere som er villig til å sette på styr det amerikanske demokratiet, som i virkeligheten er basert på en tolkning av en konstitusjon, som kan ha mistet mye av sin legitimiteten som et resultat av 1. juli-avgjørelsen. Han bryr seg ikke om penger, imperium eller makt - alt han bryr seg om er hans selvbilde og ærgjerrighet. Dessuten er han for gammel til å bry seg om fremtiden; borgerkrig kan skje, i likhet med et kapitalistisk kollaps som kan lede til verdenshistoriens første sanne kommunistregime en gang i dette århundret - i selveste USA. 

Det tok mye kortere tid enn 4 år å "skape" en "lovløs stat". For Trump og hans folk er det vi definerer som lovløshet, lovverk for dem. 

Uenig.

Samfunnet var ikke lovløst i hans ungdom. Selv hans millioner av tilhengere ønsker sykehus og medisiner når de blir syke, varer i butikkene, skoler som tar vare på ungene deres osv osv. Hvis det monsteret du skisserer skulle slippe løs, kan ALLE vinke farvel til mange slike goder. Tror neppe de vil se positivt på total lovløshet. De vil kanskje synes det er gøy i en periode og tro de kan gjøre som de vil, helt til monsteret biter dem selv i rumpa.

Jeg tror du tar feil mht. hva Trump strever mot. Personlig tror jeg han er enkel som en liten unge...han vil bestemme alt selv, han vil være "berømt", elsket og beundret, han vil være midtpunktet. Nei, konsekvensvurdering er ikke hans sterkeste side, men han vil tross alt ha folk rundt seg som har hodet bedre skrudd på. Selv om GOP skulle kontrollere hele Kongressen, vil det skapes en mot-opinion der også hvis han går for langt. Det blir litt feil å sammenligne med Sovjet/Russland, syns jeg... det er et helt annet folk, med en helt annen historie og kultur. Jeg nekter å tro at DT klarer å skape stalinistiske tilstander i USA, hvor man til tross for store forskjeller mellom have's og have-not's er vant til en viss orden, rettsbeskyttelse og en annen samfunns-struktur.

[JK22]

SilverShaded skrev (14 minutter siden):

Uenig.

Samfunnet var ikke lovløst i hans ungdom. Selv hans millioner av tilhengere ønsker sykehus og medisiner når de blir syke, varer i butikkene, skoler som tar vare på ungene deres osv osv. Hvis det monsteret du skisserer skulle slippe løs, kan ALLE vinke farvel til mange slike goder. Tror neppe de vil se positivt på total lovløshet. De vil kanskje synes det er gøy i en periode og tro de kan gjøre som de vil, helt til monsteret biter dem selv i rumpa.

Jeg tror du tar feil mht. hva Trump strever mot. Personlig tror jeg han er enkel som en liten unge...han vil bestemme alt selv, han vil være "berømt", elsket og beundret, han vil være midtpunktet. Nei, konsekvensvurdering er ikke hans sterkeste side, men han vil tross alt ha folk rundt seg som har hodet bedre skrudd på. Selv om GOP skulle kontrollere hele Kongressen, vil det skapes en mot-opinion der også hvis han går for langt. Det blir litt feil å sammenligne med Sovjet/Russland, syns jeg... det er et helt annet folk, med en helt annen historie og kultur. Jeg nekter å tro at DT klarer å skape stalinistiske tilstander i USA, hvor man til tross for store forskjeller mellom have's og have-not's er vant til en viss orden, rettsbeskyttelse og en annen samfunns-struktur.

Studere den amerikanske innenrikshistorien i dybden og du vil da realisere at USA ikke er mindre sårbar enn resten av verden, ikke glem at slavespørsmålet hadde fulgt til utbruddet av den amerikanske borgerkrigen fordi frontene var blitt for steil for videre kompromisspolitiske manøvrering, da Lincoln ikke ville kompromisse var det fordi det ikke lenge finnes marginer for videre forhandling. Man når før eller senere et punkt hvor den ene siden må gi etter, og vi ser mye av dette i den demokratisk-republikanske feiden som er i ferd med å sette på styr den amerikanske føderasjonen mot åpen ruin. Som sørstatene i 1860 er republikanerne den uforsonlige og kompromissløse parten som ikke vil ha noe løsning på konflikten. 

Du vet tydelig ikke at republikanerne har nemlig et konsept som jeg kaller "den falske konservatisme" basert på retten til å ekskludere disse som ikke "hører hjemme", man heller valgt å kansellere/annullere fremfor å dele når man tvinges til å måtte dele med "de urene" som "niggers", "degos" og "gooks" som de fargede, latinos og asiater var kalt i Trumps ungdomstid hvor Warren kjempet for et rettskaffen samfunn som skulle inkludere alle under lovens beskyttelse. Siden Nixon og deretter Reagan hadde republikanerne kjempet først for å reversere "den andre rekonstruksjonen", deretter den progressive USA - og nå, etter høyesterettsavgjørelsen 1. juli, den amerikanske eksistensberettigelsen som en nasjon for likemenn. Republikanerne er villig til å annullere selv det amerikanske demokratiet, i flere delstater som Texas er det kommet på bordet forslag som vil fjerne folkelig medbestemmelsesrett. Og de blir mer og mer freidig inntil punktet at de helt ignorere faresignalene fordi de oppriktig tror motparten ikke vil sette seg i motstand. 

Republikanerne vil gjøre sykehus og medisin utilgjengelig for de som ikke kan betale. Har du glemt at jeg skrev annetsteds om de ultraliberale kreftene som står bak republikanerne? Disse er ultraliberalistisk av en sort at de vil ha et sosialdarwinistisk stendersamfunn basert på sosialøkonomiske kriterier i en ekstrem tro på "the self-made man" uten å fatte de sosiale og humanitære konsekvenser dette vil utløse. De vil at de sterke skal seire på bekostning av de fattige, selv under den forgylte tiden hadde det ikke gått så langt, og de vil omgjøre sine arbeidere til slaver eller enslige arbeidere som må akseptere arbeidsgivernes absolutt makt. 

I 1950-tallet hadde de betalt ferie. Organisert arbeidsvern. Gratis skolegang, Fair tilgang på sykehus og medisin. Gratis samfunnstjenester. De hadde ENHVER vi har/hadde i det skandinaviske velferdssamfunnet. Og de valgt å kaste det bort for de neste tjue år. Fordi de vil ikke dele. 

Og de vil fremdeles ikke dele. Parallellene med 1860 er stående; de hvite i sørstatene vil ikke dele sitt land med sine slaver som skulle bli frislippet og gitt de samme rettigheter som seg selv. Dette ledet til USAs blodigste krig. 

Republikanerne vil ikke dele. Så enkelt er det. 

[JK22]

Roberts og andre prøver å slukke brannen, men skaden er hendt. De hadde valgt å begå konstitusjonsbrudd ved å gi presidenten absolutt immunitet og dermed brøt alle prinsipper knyttet til den amerikanske republikken. Da betyr det ingenting om disse skulle forklare at det baseres på ideen om "presumptive immunity" fordi definisjonsmakten ligger ikke hos den lovgivende makten eller høyesteretten, her hadde Roberts begått tjenesteforsømmelse. Roberts;

“Under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts,” Roberts wrote. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.” 

Det blir helt feil; hva er "official acts" og hva er "unofficial acts"? Hvem skulle bestemme hva det er? Ordet "presumptive" har ingen innhold i det hele tatt, ved at det kamuflere i virkeligheten faktumet om at presidenten er hevet over loven. Og her ligger feilen; hvor ligger grensen, som gjør at presidenten kan bryte loven straffritt? 

Presidential immunity is a power that presidents claim under the Constitution, shielding them from civil and presumed criminal immunity for acts they commit in their official capacity as president. While it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, presidents have claimed it is inherent in the separation of powers clause, and courts have largely upheld the right. 

Konstitusjonen ganske enkelt gir ikke presidenten immunitet fordi som forklart er likemannsprinsippet essensielt, slik at det bare finnes begrensede immunitet knyttet til mandatet ved at disse ikke kan saksøkes eller forfølges for handlinger disse begikk i statens tjeneste. Det er dette de konservative dommerne grepet tak i, selv om dette ikke finnes juridisk sett som lite annet enn en sedvane som hadde blitt etablert i ettertiden. Så i basis, absolutt immunitet innføres på misbruk av en sedvane i fravær av konstitusjonell bestemmelse. 

While the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have “absolute” immunity with respect to their “core constitutional powers,” the ruling still leaves room for presidents to be prosecuted under a narrow set of circumstances, pertaining to responsibilities that fall “within the outer perimeter” of presidential duties, or to unofficial acts. 

Dette er et meget stort problem her. HVEM skal definere hva er "uoffisielt", HVORDAN skal det gjøres, og HVILKEN grunnlag kan dette ha? Det redusere domstolene til et reparasjonsverksted med alvorlige konsekvenser som tidlig sagt, og dommer Tanya Chutkan kan i teorien utarbeide en siktelse basert på overtredelsene Trump hadde begått, spesielt knyttet til valgprosessen i 2020-21 da han prøvd å sette seg over loven. Men dessverre tyder alt på at det er et spørsmål om motiv fremfor bevisbyrde. Det er en meget liten mulighet at Chutkan kan ta ut Trump for godt, men hun vil står på bar grunn uten noe som helst orienteringskart å gjøre bruk av, for hvor er grensene? 

Constitutional lawyer slams 'former student' John Roberts over paving way for 'get-out-of-jail' card (msn.com)

Former Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe on Monday shared his thoughts on the Supreme Court's immunity ruling in favor of Donald Trump — slamming his "former student" in the process.

Explaining to CNN's Erin Burnett that he agrees "entirely with Justice [Sonia] Sotomayor and Justice [Ketanji] Jackson in their dissents," Tribe notes, "I would give my former student, John Roberts, a B minus. His opinion doesn't rely on any intelligent dissection of a separation of powers. He makes it up as he goes along. He has nothing — absolutely nothing — to say about the important hypotheticals that the justices in dissent pointed out. And they weren't just hypothetical, they came up in the oral argument, the immunity that the majority granted was even greater than that, which the president's lawyer, John Saur, asked for."

The former Harvard professor explained, "To begin with, the delay itself, gives the president de facto absolute immunity. More than that, the dissenters, especially Justice Jackson, pointed out that the court has it upside down, almost like the upside down flag that [Justice Samuel] Alito flew, has an upside down one, that says that if the president uses as a official powers to commit crimes — all crimes, apparently including murder — then he gets either absolute immunity, if the power is at the absolute core, or presumptive immunity, which is a vague notion, if the immunity is for official act."

"But as Justice Jackson pointed out," Tribe continued, "it's all the worst if the president uses power is available only to him to commit crimes. The court never explains why it has turned things upside down that way. There is no precedent supporting with the court did. There has never before been any immunity from criminal prosecution suggested in any court decisions, state or federal, in the history of the United States of America."

The legal expert emphasized, "This is a sad day, not just because of the license it gives to Donald Trump, should he ever become president again to get rid of this case all altogether and commit all manner of crimes without ever being held accountable. But because of what it does to the future of the country. Let's assume that we've somehow gotten past the MAGA plague, and that we don't have a Trump-ified government. There will be future presidents who will take it as very tempting to become president knowing that it's a get-out-of-jail-free card for everything except purely private behavior."

"And even there, when many of us believed, and as a former professor of evidence as well as constitutional law, when I was confident that you could at least use evidence of official acts, even though you might not be able to prosecute for them, you could use that evidence to show a pattern, and a motive of the wrong doer," Tribe added. "Here, the court says you can't look at motive — it doesn't matter if the president is trying to benefit himself rather than the country. Only Justice Barrett disagreed with the men on the court when she said that at least the evidence should be used. So this is a disastrous decision."

Tribe, som var læremester for Roberts, er rasende. 

Loss of Supreme Court legitimacy can lead to political violence (msn.com)

Americans are gearing up to celebrate the Fourth of July, and their thoughts are most likely on how many hot dogs to buy for the cookout and whether a family member needs to go stake out a good spot to watch the parade and fireworks.

While the holiday is focused on revelry, July Fourth actually commemorates a solemn moment in the country’s history, when it declared independence from the colonial power Great Britain. The institutions of government imagined by the founders and their successors over the following decades – among them the presidency, Congress, the departments of State and Treasury, the Supreme Court – have retained their authority and legitimacy for more than 200 years, weathering challenges from wars both internal and abroad and massive economic, political and social upheaval.

But now, the Supreme Court, in the wake of a series of highly controversial rulings and ethical questions about some justices, is experiencing historically low public standing. And that has prompted a national conversation about the court’s legitimacy. It’s even drawn rare public comment from three sitting Supreme Court justices.

What’s referred to by experts as the problem of “judicial legitimacy” may seem abstract, but the court’s faltering public support is about more than popularity.

Eroding legitimacy means that government officials and ordinary people become increasingly unlikely to accept public policies with which they disagree. And Americans need only look to the relatively recent past to understand the stakes of the court’s growing legitimacy problem.

The Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education shined a light on many white Americans’ tenuous loyalty to the authority of the federal judiciary.

In Brown, the court unanimously held that racial segregation in public education violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The justices were abundantly aware that their decision would evoke strong emotions. So Chief Justice Earl Warren worked tirelessly to ensure that the court issued a unanimous, short and readable opinion designed to calm the anticipated popular opposition.

Warren’s efforts were in vain. Rather than recognizing the court’s authoritative interpretation of the Constitution, many white Americans participated in an extended, violent campaign of resistance to the desegregation ruling.

The integration of the University of Mississippi in 1962 provides a pointed example of this resistance.

The Supreme Court had backed a lower federal court that ordered the university to admit James Meredith, a Black Air Force veteran. But Mississippi Gov. Ross Barnett led a wide-ranging effort to stop Meredith from enrolling at Ole Miss, including deploying state and local police to prevent Meredith from entering campus.

On Sunday, Sept. 30, 1962, Meredith nevertheless arrived on the university’s campus, guarded by dozens of federal marshals, to register and begin classes the next day. A crowd of 2,000 to 3,000 people gathered on campus and broke into a riot. Meredith and the marshals were attacked with Molotov cocktails and gunfire. The marshals fired tear gas in return.

In response, President John F. Kennedy invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807 and ordered the U.S. Army onto campus to restore order and protect Meredith. Overnight, thousands of troops arrived, battling rioters.

The violence finally ended after 15 hours, leaving two civilians dead – both killed by rioters – and dozens of wounded marshals and soldiers in addition to hundreds of injuries among the insurgent mob.

The next day, Oct. 1, Meredith enrolled in the university and attended his first class, but thousands of troops remained in Mississippi for months afterward to preserve order.

What some call “the Battle of Oxford” was fueled by white racism and segregation, but it played out against the backdrop of weak judicial legitimacy. Federal courts did not command enough respect among state officials or ordinary white Mississippians to protect the constitutional rights of Black Mississippians. Neither Gov. Barnett nor the thousands of Oxford rioters were willing to follow the court order for Meredith to enroll at the university.

In the end, the Constitution and the federal courts prevailed only because Kennedy backed them with the Army. But the cost of weak judicial legitimacy was paid in blood.

Legitimacy leads to acceptance

In contrast, when people believe in the legitimacy of their governing institutions, they are more likely to accept, respect and abide by the rules the government – including the courts – ask them to live under, even when the stakes are high and the consequences are far-reaching.

For example, two decades ago, the Supreme Court resolved a disputed presidential election in Bush v. Gore, centered on the counting of ballots in Florida. This time, the court was deeply divided along ideological lines, and its long, complicated and fragmented opinion was based on questionable legal reasoning.

But in 2000, the court enjoyed more robust legitimacy among the public than it does today. As a consequence, Florida officials ceased recounting disputed ballots. Vice President Al Gore conceded the election to Texas Gov. George W. Bush, specifically accepting the Supreme Court’s pivotal ruling.

No Democratic senator challenged the validity of Florida’s disputed Electoral College votes for Bush. Congress certified the Electoral College’s vote, and Bush was inaugurated.

Democrats were surely disappointed, and some protested. But the court was viewed as sufficiently legitimate to produce enough acceptance by enough people to ensure a peaceful transition of power. There was no violent riot; there was no open resistance.

Indeed, on the very night that Gore conceded, the chants of his supporters gathered outside tacitly accepted the outcome: “Gore in four!” – as if to say, “We’ll get you next time, because we believe there will be a next time.”

Risks ahead

But what happens when institutions fail to retain citizens’ loyalty?

The Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection showcased the consequences of broken legitimacy. The rioters who stormed the Capitol had lost faith in systems that undergird American democracy: counting presidential votes in the states, tallying Electoral College ballots and settling disputes over election law in the courts.

The men and women who stormed the Capitol may have believed their country was being stolen, even if such beliefs were baseless. So, they rebelled in the face of a result they didn’t like.

The threat of further unrest is real. Polls show the 2024 presidential election between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump will be a close call, and it is likely that election results in several states will be challenged in federal courts. Some of these claims may raise good-faith questions about the administration of elections, while others advance more spurious claims intended to undermine faith in the election’s outcome.

In the end, Americans’ faith in the timely resolution of those cases and their peaceful acceptance of the presidential election’s result will hinge on whether the losing candidate’s supporters accept the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the judiciary more broadly.

Nothing is certain in politics, but the specter of constitutional crisis looms over the United States. It’s dangerously unclear whether the Supreme Court retains enough legitimacy to ensure acceptance of decisions addressing the upcoming election among those who find themselves on the losing side. If it doesn’t, the court’s abstract legitimacy problem could once again lead to violence and insurrection.

Aldri tidligere har den føderale høyesteretten vært så upopulært (siden 1863) - 28. juni-avgjørelsen og 1. juli-avgjørelsen kan bli for mye for det amerikanske folket. 

'Never seen language like this': SCOTUS lawyer worried 'something really dangerous going on' (msn.com)

US Supreme Court lawyer and legal analyst Neal Katyal, speaking with MSNBC's Katie Phang on Monday,expressed fear that he suspects "there's something really dangerous" happening to the rule of law in the United States.

Phang noted how "stunned" legal experts were when Trump lawyer John Saul, during oral arguments in April, suggested that a president should be able to assassinate political opponents.

"Now the majority's saying that if the president says it falls within the purview of his official acts, does he now legally and officially say, 'I can commit murder?'" Phang asked Katyal.

"It's unfathomable that the Supreme Court which has been such an august body, Chief justice John Marshall, Justice Thurgood Marshall — people like that — are issuing a decision like this," the Supreme Court lawyer replied, "that allows for such things — as calling them official acts. And that's why I think you saw Justice Sotomayor [write], 'With fear for our democracy, I dissent.'"

Katyal continued, "And I can tell you, I've never seen language like this in a Supreme Court opinion or dissent. There is something really dangerous going on here, and something that is really threatening the entire basis of our constitution and separation of powers."

"My parents came to this country from another because of the principle that no one was above the law," the MSNBC legal analyst emphasized. "That's what we hold out as most dear. And now to have a Supreme Court opinion that blesses, to be sure, 100%, it blesses the president pressuring his justice department to falsely say that there were election irregularities. They say that's an official act."

"Once you go down that road, the pressure on presidents to do all sorts of untoward things is immense," the legal expert emphasized. Fortunately, for 200 years, we've elected people — Republicans and Democrats alike — who've colored within those lines. But I fear that the next one may not be so solicitous of our constitutional values and norms."

Donald unchained: SCOTUS decision would give Trump the immunity to run rampant just in time for a possible 2nd term, experts say (msn.com)

SCOTUS immunity would've freed Richard Nixon to spy on opponents all he liked, experts said Monday.

In a second term, Trump himself would enjoy immunity superpowers.

SCOTUS immunized a range of "truly dangerous and nefarious actions by a president," one expert said.

As president, Richard Nixon used the FBI, the CIA, and White House "advisors" — the now notorious "plumbers" — to spy on and sabotage his political opponents.

Under Monday's Supreme Court decision — which confers the presumption of immunity on a president's "official" actions — Nixon could not have been charged for any of these abuses of power, one constitutional law expert told Business Insider.

"Most, if not all, of that conduct would fall on the 'presumptively-official' side of the line," said Michel Paradis, an attorney who teaches national security and constitutional law at Columbia Law School.

"And it is not obvious to me how you would show that it was not if you are forbidden from any inquiry into the president's motives," Paradis added.

Under Monday's decision, "courts may not inquire into the President's motives" in deciding if a presidential act is official or unofficial.

Trump is now free during a potential second administration to direct others to stretch or break the law in any of the ways he's already signaled he hopes to, Paradis said.

He can dispatch the military to break up protests or deport migrants; he can fire civil servants who disagree with him; he can disband agencies he doesn't like — including the Department of Education or the Environmental Protection Agency — and he can then pardon anyone who gets in trouble for carrying out his orders, Paradis said.

And by calling these acts "official," he can do all of the above without himself being prosecuted, Paradis said.

"Or take the subject matter of Trump's first impeachment," the law professor added.

With his new Supreme Court-protected immunity, "He could have much more explicitly directed Rudy Giuliani to convey a threat to the Ukrainians demanding that they come out with dirt on Biden or that he would withhold all aid," he said.

"And he can direct subordinates to not simply 'skirt' the law, but affirmatively break it with the promise of a pardon if they do," Paradis added. "And he can do so, knowing that it is extremely unlikely under the court's rule today that he could be successfully prosecuted."

It will give Trump even more license to push legal boundaries, agreed former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani, the president and co-founder of West Coast Trial Lawyers.

"Trump will be more empowered to push the limits of the law and to go after his rivals if he thinks he can get away with it," Rahmani told Business Insider.

"Trump has always pushed the limits of the law, and if he has at least some immunity now, he will be even more willing to do so," Rahmani added.

"It's actually very striking that we're getting this opinion three days before the Fourth of July, where we recognized our Declaration of Independence from a king," said Cliff Sloan, Georgetown Law professor and constitutional law expert.

"And this opinion, more than any other in the Supreme Court's history, gives the president king-like powers," Sloan added.

"It's a sad day for the country," Sloan said. "It's a sad day for our constitutional democracy. It was a sad day for the Supreme Court."

Sloan said it was particularly disturbing that the majority decision made zero mention of the now-notorious Seal Team Six hypothetical — which asked if a president enjoys official-act immunity if that official act is, as Commander in Chief, ordering Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival.

"Everybody was horrified" when Trump's lawyer first raised immunity in that circumstance as a possible consequence, Sloan said.

But although Justice Sonya Sotomayor, in Monday's dissent, complains anew that Trump and future presidents can now get away with ordering political assassinations — simply by arguing that doing so is an official act — "the majority does not dispute it, which is really remarkable," Sloan said.

"It's actually incredible that we now have an opinion that seems to confer immunity for a wide range of truly dangerous and nefarious actions by a president," he added.

Det gjør meget klart for alle at Roberts og hans medskyldige må konfronteres med full kraft. De har gjort alt helt feil. Selv hvis Trump skulle meget overraskende arresteres på ordre av Chutkan, eller hvis Trump sørget for at han fjernet alt etter å ha blitt gjenvalgt, har disse fordømte idiotene i dommerkapper begått forræderi og vist at de ikke er opptatt av USA og den amerikanske nasjonens tese om at alle er lik, dvs. at ingen er over loven. 

Endret i går, 01:36 av JK22

[JK22]

What constitutes an 'official act' by a president? - ABC News (go.com)

In a historic ruling on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court said former President Donald Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for "official" acts taken as president, but not for any "unofficial" acts.

The 6-3 decision could have major implications for the various criminal cases pending against Trump -- especially special counsel Jack Smith’s federal case, for which Trump faces four felony counts for alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

What constitutes an "official" versus an "unofficial" act by the president is not precisely defined in the opinion, and Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged it could raise "difficult questions."

"Certain allegations -- such as those involving Trump's discussions with the Acting Attorney General -- are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President's official relationship to the office held by that individual," Roberts wrote in the opinion. "Other allegations -- such as those involving Trump's interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public -- present more difficult questions."

In addition to the core presidential duties laid out in the Constitution, conduct within the "outer perimeter" of official functions would be deemed immune as long as it is "not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority."

It would be up to the lower courts to determine whether the conduct in question is considered official or unofficial.

"[Official acts are] something that you would expect the president to do -- kind of a core presidential duty, like acting as Commander-in-Chief of the military," said Chris Timmons, a former prosecutor and ABC News legal contributor. "If the president of the United States sent troops to Lebanon, for example, he couldn't be prosecuted for murder."

Though the ruling has been largely deemed a win for Trump, it’s far from a get-out-of-jail-free card, legal experts told ABC News -- particularly when it comes to prosecution for actions he took not as the president but as a candidate.

When it comes to allegations that Trump enlisted "fake electors" to overturn the 2020 election in his favor, for example, it would likely be difficult to argue that was done in his official capacity as president.

"The interaction with fake electors is not something a president does as part of his official duties -- it is something a candidate does as part of their campaign," Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina, told ABC News. "That allows the court to say, I think rightly in this case, that Trump's interaction with the fake electors is really on the unofficial side, rather than official."

Even so, punting the decision to the lower courts is almost certain to throw obstacles in the way of the pending litigation against Trump, slowing them down even further ahead of the election.

"The court basically said that as long as Trump or any president claims that what he was doing was acting officially, then his actions are presumptively constitutional, and it's up to the prosecutor to find evidence to overcome that presumption, and that is not going to be easy," Gerhardt said.

Some legal experts expect Smith may reevaluate the federal case against Trump, possibly jettisoning some elements that could prove shakier due to the Supreme Court ruling.

"One option is to try to streamline the case considerably to only those acts that either Trump conceded were unofficial, or those acts plus some that Jack Smith thinks he has the best chance of persuading the courts are unofficial, and then proceed on that basis in the interest of efficiency," Jessica Roth, a former federal prosecutor and Cardozo Law professor, told ABC News. "Or does he want to be more aggressive and try to keep more of the allegations in the case, which might be more risky for him in terms of ultimately prevailing?"

" - actions he took not as the president but as a candidate - " Dette er egentlig bare på skjønn og på svak grunn. Det er dessuten latterlig, det om Libanon - som statsoverhode representere man staten, og da er det staten, ikke presidenten, som gjøres ansvarlig. På alle steder merker man stigende forvirring og voksende frustrasjon, på mange steder virker det som at man ikke fatte at det er en sterk forskjell før og etter 1. juli-avgjørelsen. Spesielt på republikansk hold. 

Supreme Court live updates: Biden says SCOTUS decision sets 'dangerous precedent' (msn.com)

President Joe Biden addressed the Supreme Court's historic decision on presidential immunity Monday, saying the ruling "fundamentally changed" the limits to America's highest office.

"This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America," Biden said.

"Each of us is equal before the law," he continued. "No one is above the law, not even the president of the United States."

"Today's decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do," Biden said. 

"This is a fundamentally new principle, and it's a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including Supreme Court of the United States," Biden continued, warning, "The only limits will be self-imposed posed by the president alone."

Biden med rette er oppbrakt. 

Med rette. Roberts har valgt å forråde hans ed. Hvis han hadde truffet avgjørelsen om at presidenten bare har begrenset immunitet knyttet til hans mandat, ville dette ikke ha hendt; istedenfor dikter han opp noe helt uhørt, og redusert alle inngrepsmuligheter til lik null på en ren skjønnsdefinisjon som ingen kan finne noe fast form på. For det blir for vag, for utydelig og dermed for lett å miste. 

USA er ikke lenge en presidentrepublikk. Den er nå en diktaturrepublikk. 

[Red Frostraven]

SilverShaded skrev (9 timer siden):

Dvs. at den vil havne på bordet til Høyesterett til slutt. Da må samme hensyn gjelde, siden dagens avgjørelse setter en viktig presedens.

Husker du da Mitch McConnell nektet å ta inn Merick Garland til høyesterett fordi det i følge ham og republikanerene var en tradisjon med å ikke ta inn medlemmer til høyesterett et valgår?

Husker du hva som skjedde da de fikk makten?

Man kan ikke tro ett eneste sekund at sjarlatanene i det republikanske partiet, og forventninger om at de opererer i god tro og folkets, og for rettferdighet, er død for over 40 år siden.

[SilverShaded]

Red Frostraven skrev (59 minutter siden):

Husker du da Mitch McConnell nektet å ta inn Merick Garland til høyesterett fordi det i følge ham og republikanerene var en tradisjon med å ikke ta inn medlemmer til høyesterett et valgår?

Husker du hva som skjedde da de fikk makten?

Man kan ikke tro ett eneste sekund at sjarlatanene i det republikanske partiet, og forventninger om at de opererer i god tro og folkets, og for rettferdighet, er død for over 40 år siden.

 Jada, jeg husker at Obama nominerte garland i 2016 og at det republikanske Senatet/Mitch McConnell blokkerte dette. Han lykkes vel med dette i mot historisk presedens. Garland ble selvsagt aldri utnevnt av Trump. Og ja, jeg er helt klar over hvordan det ligger an mht. GOP og deres mishandling av lov/rett/rettferdighet. Men fremdeles er ikke Høyesterett og GOP helt det samme, selv om overtallet er republikansk. De kan selvsagt nekte å behandle en eventuell Biden-sak, hvis det er det du mener ? Men derfra til å henrette Biden uten lov og dom er det et stykke. Det var i utgangspunktet det utsagnet jeg reagerte mot.

Endret i går, 08:32 av SilverShaded

[AtterEnBruker]

Denne artikkelen handler mer om europa, men er høyst aktuell for USA også. Handler om bagatellisering av det som skjer når demokratier dør. Samt om både en ytre og indre motvilje til å adressere at det faktisk skjer...

https://agendamagasin.no/kommentarer/klovner-i-kamp/

«Normalisering av fascistisk ideologi vil, per definisjon, får anklager om «fascisme» til å framstå som en overreaksjon», skriver Jason Stanley i boka «How Fascism Works». Hans familie flyktet fra nazi-Tyskland, og mormoren fortalte ham alltid hvor vanskelig det var for henne å overtale familiemedlemmer, venner og bekjente om å gjøre det samme. De mente hun overdrev.

Denne effekten ser man overalt i dag, både ang. fremgangen av ytre høyre i Europa og situasjonen i USA. Div. youtubere har gjort det som levebrød å fremme det narrativet ("those blue-haired wokelords sees racism everywhere, y'know"), og man ser den effekten i Norge også. Man ser det i kommentarfeltet, man ser det i div. konservative, kulturkrigerske tenketanker, og man ser det i stor grad her inne på forumet også. 

Folk som dag og natt står på standby-mode for å smelle "du er ingenting annet enn en godhetsposør" o.l. når trusler mot demokratiet blir addressert.

Eller kamuflere trusler mot demokratiet som "meninger man ikke liker/er uenige med". Det er Nummer 1-trikset her i Norge akkurat nå.

Flere personer trenger å slutte å være redd for å bli sett på som "den politisk korrekte, godhetsposerende gledesdreperen".

 

Endret i går, 08:57 av AtterEnBruker

[JK22]

“This is a death squad ruling": Maddow says SCOTUS immunity ruling goes further than Trump asked for (msn.com)

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Monday underscored the gravity of a recent Supreme Court decision that is expected to allow Donald Trump to receive broad immunity from criminal charges for "official acts" taken while in office. The ruling, a 6-3 split along ideological lines, saw Chief Justice John Roberts deliver the majority opinion.

“I really did not expect that they would do this,” said Maddow, a staunch critic of the former president. "Donald Trump and his counsel asked for this 100 percent absolute immunity thing, which was insane. I would say they got 105 percent of what they were asking for.”

"The practical impact of what they have done is to give Trump immunity that even he and his counsel did not ask for," the host added.

Maddow also noted the hypothetical questions posed by Trump's attorney ahead of the ruling, who floated the idea that presidential immunity should cover situations as extreme as a president assassinating a political opponent. 

“This is a death squad ruling,” Maddow argued. “This is a ruling that says that as long as you can construe it as an official or quasi-official act, you can do absolutely anything ― absolutely anything ― and never be held accountable, not only while you are president, but forever.”

“This explicitly immunizes anything the president wants to do through the Justice Department but all but explicitly justifies anything the president wants to do, full stop, to anyone,” Maddow continued. “And that is as serious as it gets.”

The Supreme Court just set a timer on an immunity time bomb (msn.com)

It’s hard to see how the Supreme Court’s ruling on whether former President Donald Trump enjoys immunity from prosecution could be much worse. It’s true that the opinion in Trump v. United States doesn’t grant him the absolute immunity that he’d claimed. Instead, Chief Justice John Roberts authored a majority opinion as close as possible to finding that absolute immunity without making a complete mockery of the findings of the lower courts. In the end, the chief justice and his GOP-appointed colleagues determined that presidents are immune for “official acts” but may still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts” once they’ve left office.

With this decision, the six conservative justices left up in the air exactly what parts of the federal indictment against Trump are still constitutional. The opinion accordingly pats itself on the back for not making the determination straight away, leaving that to the lower courts to determine based on a test of the Supreme Court’s devising. But the caveats and examples that the court provides in its opinion makes it obvious that anything determined to be outside the shield it has erected around Trump will be at best a temporary setback for the former president.

In this brave new world, a president’s actions can be divided into three categories. The first are those official acts that are “conclusive and preclusive” — authorized through a power granted solely to the president under the Constitution. Such acts are now totally protected from prosecution. All other official acts, including presidential communications, are granted “presumptive immunity.” In those cases, prosecutors can still argue that executive privilege doesn’t apply but it’s up to a judge to make that call. Finally, “unofficial acts,” or those taken beyond the scope of office, don’t fall under the aegis of this newfound immunity — but exactly what counts is left undefined.

In setting this new precedent, Roberts draws heavily on the 1982 decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which determined that the president enjoys immunity from civil cases even for acts that extend to the “outer perimeter” of their role. The same presumed immunity for those acts now applies to criminal cases, “so long as they are ‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.’” With that very unhelpful guidance, Roberts has ordered the lower courts to do the work now of figuring out what exactly that entails, including whether the Trump-led pressure campaign against former Vice President Mike Pence fits the bill.

Accordingly, this ruling has wiped away entirely the assertion in special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment that Trump leaned on the Justice Department to pursue false election fraud cases to bolster his efforts to overturn the election. More damaging, Smith is now blocked from even using those supposedly “official acts” as evidence to prove criminality for unofficial acts, whichever those wind up being. The overall effect is to tie prosecutors’ hands, cutting them off from one of the key factors in determining whether to bring charges against a person.

Importantly, Roberts also writes that “in dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.” This new dictum applies even in instances of clear motive to act in their own personal interest, rather the national interest, putting such motivations beyond the reach of prosecutors. This determination also all but bars lower court judges from applying common sense to charges involving a president, as Monday’s ruling also blocks judges from deeming a president’s action unofficial “merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.”

To top it all off, Roberts sanctimoniously forgoes driving the dagger into the heart of this case. After determining that criminal immunity exists for official presidential actions, he then writes that “the current stage of the proceedings in this case does not require us to decide whether this immunity is presumptive or absolute” for each of those given actions. No, those issues must be left for the future because, he writes, a single case “in more than ‘two centuries does not afford enough experience’ to definitively and comprehensively determine the President’s scope of immunity from criminal prosecution.”

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the federal case in question, is now tasked with adjudicating which of Trump’s actions are still subject to prosecution. What is left only implicit in the opinion, though, is that those decisions are subject to appeal by Trump or the prosecutors (though much more likely the former). So, too, are the decisions that the appeals court eventually makes, putting the final call right back where it started: in the hands of Roberts and his fellow conservatives.

In sum, this decision is a Roberts special, projecting neutral impartiality while thoroughly skewed toward a predetermined outcome. The supposed tests that are meant to give the veneer of wide applicability beyond Trump should instead be seen in the same light as the decision to allow him onto the ballot despite the 14th Amendment’s language preventing it: a fig leaf over a standard that applies to only one man.

It frankly would have been better if Roberts had adopted Justice Samuel Alito’s disdain for subtlety. It would be more honest for Roberts to not bother pretending that the court’s conservative wing won't eventually consider Trump’s attempts to steal the 2020 election entirely within the bounds of this newly created immunity. Instead, we are forced to watch as Trump, newly armed with the confidence that nothing can stop him, continues throwing rocks into the gears of justice, grinding proceedings against him to a halt once more.

Denne artikkelen avslører Roberts ikke bare som en forbryter som forbrøt seg mot hans ed som høyesterettsdommer, men også som en pro-Trump som nekte å treffe en avgjørelse og gir absolutt immunitet til fremtidige presidenter på meget uklar grunnlag, selv når veldokumenterte lovbrudd hendt, ved å gjøre hele saken om "uoffisiell akt" til et åpent spørsmål som domstolene ikke er i stand til å avgjøre fordi motparten kan etterprøve, sabotere og sinke uten større problemer - slik at et brudd kan trekkes ut i tiden. 

I praksis; Maddow har rett; Trump får ikke "medhold", i virkeligheten får han full seier med henblikk på presidentembetet som han aktet å gjenvinne, og uhemmet evne for å motarbeide rettsinstanser omkring både oppståtte og fremtidige lovbrudd - det betyr at dommerne må famle seg fram for å finne korrekte prosedyrer, riktige tiltalepunkter og deretter være i stand til å etablere at disse var "uoffisiell akt". Istedenfor et standpunkt kastes man ut i kaos. Som gjør at Trump og fremtidige presidenter kan fritt gjøre som de vil uten at domstolene kan stoppe dem. Dette er "105 %" som Maddox hadde sagt. 

Biden kan arresteres, settes i fengsel og henrettes uten lov og dom under ganske suspekte omstendigheter som sett med Putin og Navalnyj, som dør - uten at domstolene eller kongressen er i stand til å gripe inn tidsnok. Trump trengte ikke engangs å utsette Biden for åpen rettsforfølgelse, selv Putin har ikke juridisk absolutt immunitet etter russisk grunnlov slik at han alltid tok snarveier for å komme utenom hindringer. I USA vil ikke Trump eller andre presidenter ha noe som helst hindring. Alt som trenges er å gjøre det som "offisiell akt", og deretter trenerte dommerne som ville ha umiddelbart reagert, når Roberts hadde hindret dem fra å forby dette. 

Kongressen kan ikke hindre Trump eller fremtidige tyranner pga. de partipolitiske realitetene gjennom "vinner ta alt"-regel, topartisystem og utstrakt maktbegjær som mer eller mindre er kommet utenfor kontroll, spesielt i det republikanske partiet hvor makt og ideologi nå står foran patriotisme og folkeidentitet. 

Som da Roberts annullerte kanselleringsbestemmelsen i 14. grunnlovstillegget som kansellere en offisiell ansatt som delegat fra å inneha statsembeter, har han rett og slett ødelagt alle eventuelle kontrollmekanismer omkring straffeforfølgelse av en president (og andre embeter, som Roberts antyder). 

1. juli-avgjørelsen må stanses og sensureres. Dessuten må Roberts og hans kumpaner under massiv angrep. For de har gjort det amerikanske demokratiet til en ikke-sak og satt den amerikanske Uavhengighetserklæringen som 1789-konstitusjonen under legitim tvil. Det blir ikke mye å feire den 4. juli, som er uavhengighetsdagen for det amerikanske folket, som hadde i 1775 gjort seg uavhengig fra et monarkstyre. 

[JK22]

Authoritarianism Expert Gives Trump Immunity Ruling An Alarming Label (msn.com)

Authoritarianism expert Ruth Ben-Ghiat suggested the Supreme Court’s decision in Donald Trump’s favor to grant presidents total immunity for official acts is effectively the “autocrat’s fantasy.”

“Authoritarianism, at root, is about taking rights away from the many — that’s Dobbs, and there’s also voting rights that come into play — and allowing the few, the cronies, the oligarchs, the leader, most of all, to have no checks or fewer regulations on their lawlessness,” she said on MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House” on Monday.

“So it’s about transforming the rule of law into ‘rule by the lawless,’” she continued. “And so removing immunity from the head of state is the autocrat’s fantasy. It’s why Trump admires Xi Jinping and [Vladimir] Putin and all those autocrats, because that’s his fantasy, because he is so corrupt.”

Ben-Ghiat called Monday’s 6-3 decision “unspeakable.”

“It’s the product of these far-right activists who are using the court to, you know, destroy democracy from within,” she said.

The court’s six conservative justices agreed, in the ruling, that Trump is immune from prosecution for official acts undertaken during his presidency.

The question of what constitutes an official act will now need to be parsed by lower courts, effectively ending chances of Trump’s federal election conspiracy case going to trial before the November election. 

Should Trump win, he could order the Justice Department to drop the case and another federal case against him.

MSNBC Legal Analyst Claims Supreme Court’s Trump Immunity Ruling ‘Blueprint for How to End the Rule of Law’

MSNBC legal analyst Neal Katyal called the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling on Monday “constitutionally unfathomable” and a “blueprint for how to end the rule of law.”

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that presidents have “absolute immunity” for “official acts” taken as president. The ruling has led to a number of questions about the parameters of this immunity, especially as Donald Trump has been arguing he should not be prosecuted for any act taken while he was in office.

Katyal raised alarms about the decision and argued the “official acts” wording provides a “presumption in favor” of the president.

“Here’s what practically this means. A president, like Donald Trump next year or whoever the next president is, can take a blatantly illegal act, slap the label, ‘Hey, this is an official act!’ and write that in the preface to whatever the heck he’s doing and now we’re going to have to have hearings and so on before district judges and then appeals to determine whether it’s truly an official act or not,” he said.

Katyal argued President Joe Biden and other Democrats now need to “run against the Supreme Court,” though he cautioned he was not arguing in favor of packing the court or impeaching any judges.

“If you’re Joe Biden, if you’re a Democrat who is running for president, your path right now is clear, you have to run against the Supreme Court, you have to run against this decision. This is not America. If you want to make America great again, you’ve got to return to the rule of law. This decision today unfortunately is a blueprint on how to end the rule of law,” he said.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor claimed the majority made the president a “king above the law” and argued a president could even assassinate a political rival. MSNBC contributor Chuck Rosenberg had earlier shut this theory down in a panel discussion with Katyal, arguing the immunity only covers “core constitutional responsibilities.”

Katyal said his colleague was “absolutely right” that cases would need to be ruled on individually, but he argued this does not provide reasonable “protection.”

“We’ve never needed those case-by-case hearings before. We’ve always just assumed that a president is not above the law and in these hearings, these case by case hearings, as Lisa [Rubin] points out, you can’t even introduce any evidence of a president’s motive,” he said.

Det er mye sinne på gang. Hos demokratene diskuteres det på høyeste nivå om å reise riksrett mot Roberts og de fem andre konservative dommerne - som 1789-konstitusjonen åpner for, som selv den føderale høyesteretten ikke kan gjøre noe med, når kongressen må reagere. Og det er i sannheten skjellig grunnlag for å ha riksrett mot disse dommerne som har tre ganger begått handlinger som kan tolkes som konstitusjonsbrudd og hadde dessuten lagt fram en systematisk innsats som underminere den konstitusjonelle ordningen. Men fordi for**** tufser og idioter valgt å stemme på republikanerne, har de et lite flertall i Huset og et lite fåtall i Senatet.

På republikansk hold kom den ene støtteerklæring etter den andre til Roberts og Trump. McConnell er eneansvarlig for at den føderale høyesteretten "kom på avspor" og for å ha gjort kongressen handlingslammet. Mange har demonstrert at de er villig til å tillate ødeleggelsen av USA for maktens skyld. De har rett og slett mistet all forstand, slik at det blir helt uhørt når de reagere mot disse som raste fra seg. 

Mange forstår ikke at ordet "immunitet" er ikke total; det er forskjellige definisjoner knyttet til dette ordet utenfra alvorgrad, alle statsansatte har begrensede immunitet mot saksøkning for eksempel. Alle folkevalgte og delegater har parlamentarisk/konstitusjonell immunitet som statens representanter og som del av et politisk system ansvarlig for styre og stell. Absolutt immunitet er dermed noe som egentlig er helt uhørt, for det betyr at man står over loven, i kontrast til de andre som har lovbestemte immunitet, som betyr at de er underlagt loven. Bare konger har absolutt immunitet, som er fullstendig uakseptert i et demokratisk system basert på sentrale prinsipper hvor ingen står over andre. 

'Absolutely frightening': MSNBC's Mika's jaw drops as expert lays out Trump's plans

Donald Trump has made clear he intends to test the boundaries of the presidency immediately if he's re-elected to a second term, and MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski reacted in horror upon hearing his plans.

The presumptive Republican nominee and his allies have stated his authoritarian intentions for another presidency, and Axios co-founder Jim Vande Hei told "Morning Joe" that the former president would step back into the White House with a stronger grasp of the office and a firm grasp on the Republican Party.

"He already has a Republican Party, a Congress in waiting, that is extremely pro-Trump," Vande Hei said. "All of the restraints, all of the people in positions of power who are his critics, his adversaries, his handcuffs — they're gone. This is a Trump Congress in the House, it's a Trump Congress in the Senate, and you look at what he said he's going to do with that Republican coalition, what he's going to now do with greater immunity. He's been very clear."

"Listen, he is going to use potentially the National Guard and the military to round up millions of people and remove them from the United States," Vande Hei added. "He's going to consider using the military to protect the southern border. He's been very clear that he is going to get rid of people that he deems disloyal, that are civil servants in the United States government.

"He is going to use a unique interpretation of law that he believes he would win in a challenge to get rid of them. They've pre-vetted thousands, potentially tens of thousands of people that they want to bring into the government to do his will, to do his wishes, so that he can move much more effectively and much faster, and imagine that he does win.

"If he wins, the two oldest Supreme Court justices, [Clarence] Thomas and [Samuel] Alito, 76 and 74, the possibility that they could retire in the next term is real. Then you'd have Trump being able to put in two Supreme Court justices, probably in their 50s or 40s, people who would be there for a long time. The end result would be you'd have five justices over the course of his two terms who were appointed by Trump."

Axios laid out the ex-president's plans for another term in a new article that quotes potential vice presidential pick J.D. Vance, a GOP senator from Ohio, saying that few Republicans would stand in the way of his agenda.

"The point of the column is that, love it or hate it, he'd come in as one of the most powerful figures, and he would stress test it immediately," Vance Hei said. "They have very specific plans. This is not the haphazard Trump we covered in 2017. This is a much more organized operation, at least the people in the institutions around him."

Brzezinski agreed that Trump posed a greater threat to democracy than he did the first time around because he didn't even expect to win his 2016 election.

"I think this is devastating and absolutely frightening and absolutely could happen," she said. "As you said, he came in haphazardly. Donald Trump didn't even know he was going to win. It was one day out of an entire year where everything fell into place, and he won the presidency.

"They were, at the last minute, writing a victory speech, you know, scrambling. That's not the case this time. That means every single person that is going to be around him, they're going to plan for that person to make sure that they take the oath."

Det er nærmest GARANTERT at det kommer til å bryte ut borgerkrig eller politiske uroligheter hvis Trump vinne og begynte med å regjere helt uhemmet uten noe som helst restriksjoner. 

[JK22]

Supreme Court Gives Joe Biden The Legal OK To Assassinate Donald Trump (msn.com)

The Supreme Court’s decision that Donald Trump has full immunity for “official acts” he took as president is so sweeping and vague that it opens the door for sitting presidents to do whatever they want without any accountability, including assassinating a political rival.

Legal experts said Monday that yes, as horrific and authoritarian as that sounds, the 6-3 decision by the court’s conservative supermajority means that President Joe Biden could theoretically order that Trump be killed and be immune from criminal prosecution.

“Presumptively, he has the power to assassinate a rival,” John Dean, who was White House counsel to former President Richard Nixon, told HuffPost on a call with the Defend Democracy Project, a group that advocates for free and fair elections.

Making matters worse, said Dean, is that the court ruled that “official acts” by a president can’t be used as evidence of criminal conduct for “unofficial acts.” So in a hypothetical scenario involving Biden ordering aides to kill Trump, his actual giving of the order would be potentially unavailable for evidence, he said.

The former White House counsel, who called the Supreme Court’s decision “radical,” said the conservative majority also just raised questions about immunity for people who carry out a president’s “official” but criminal activities.

“When Nixon warned that, ‘When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,’ he went on to say, ‘How could staff operate if they didn’t have a president who was totally immune?’” said Dean. “Presidents are good at giving orders…. They don’t execute those orders themselves. So you have a whole lot of people who have criminal exposure, and this opinion in my quick reading doesn’t cover that.”

Norm Eisen, who served as former President Barack Obama’s ethics czar and as special counsel for Democrats during Trump’s 2019 impeachment trial, said the dissenting opinion by the three Democrat-appointed justices is an unprecedented and dire warning.

Led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the dissent says the immunity created by the ruling now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any president to use however they want, for their own financial interests or political gain, knowing they are insulated from criminal prosecution.

“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor wrote.

“When dissenting justices warn that the majority may have just legalized murder by one individual in our country, that warning is to be taken very seriously,” Eisen said. “No more are the consequences of the majority opinion able to be read in isolation…. One of the majority party candidates has repeatedly, not in isolation, made a variety of autocratic promises, including to be a dictator on day one.”

During Supreme Court oral arguments in this case in April, Trump’s lawyers argued that it “might well be an official act” if a president ordered the assassination of a political rival, or ordered the military to carry out a coup to keep him in office, and therefore a president would be immune from criminal prosecution for breaking these laws.

Trump, of course, hailed the court’s decision on Monday. 

“BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” he wrote on social media in all caps.

Biden, meanwhile, slammed the court’s decision as “a dangerous new precedent” and vowed he wouldn’t be the one to break the law in office.

Eisen, who also co-founded States United Democracy Center, a nonpartisan group advancing fair and secure elections, said Trump has been laying out extreme plans for a second term and that people should be horrified by his autocratic tendencies. He cited an online tracker he’s helped put together that spells out all the things that he wants to do.

“This opinion, as the dissents warn and other voices are now being heard to say, opens a dangerous tear in the American constitutional fabric, in the checks and balances that have helped us to survive this country for two and a half centuries,” said Eisen. “The opinion and the permissions it grants, for the first time in our history, must be read in that context.”

Matthew Seligman, a fellow at the Center for Constitutional Law at Stanford Law School and a partner at the law firm Stris & Maher, suggested the court’s decision reflects something much larger about the country’s political and legal culture ― namely that we’re at a point where we have to even talk how much immunity from criminal behavior should be granted to whoever wins the next presidential election.

“Whether it’s actually not illegal anymore, or it is illegal but you just can’t be prosecuted for it, we used to live in a country where there was more respect for the law than contemplating realistic hypotheticals of the president assassinating his political opponents,” he said.

As to whether he thinks the court just gave Biden the OK to assassinate Trump, Seligman said, “I don’t think Joe Biden would ever do something like that.”

Allegra Lawrence-Hardy, a co-founder and partner at Lawrence & Bundy LLC in Atlanta, Georgia, said people should not overlook that Sotomayor specifically warned that the door is now open to presidents beyond the next election potentially killing their political opponents.

“It’s important to note this clarion call from these dissenting justices,” said Lawrence-Hardy. “Because as preposterous as some of these possibilities seem to us right now, that we would be having this conversation right now seemed completely unthinkable a decade ago.”

Mer kunne ikke sies. Nå er det bare et lite håp tilbake; at amerikanerne flest vil bli så forarget, at de vil endelig innse sannheten om det republikanske partiet og kutte dem ut for godt - som de skulle ha gjort gjentatte ganger siden 1996! USA er et land som hadde hentet sin stolthet i det legalistiske budskapet om at alle er lik i lovens øyne og at ingen står over loven; nå er dette krenket på det groveste av seks høyesterettsdommerne med John Roberts i spissen. 

MEN; hvis de ikke reagere - og hvis demokratene (som er meget sinna for tiden) ikke kan få bort Biden som nå kan bare arbeide for halv styrke i løpet av dagen - vil Trump da vinne, og selv etter han skulle dø eller tre av i slutten, vil de høster verdifulle erfaringer som de burde ha unngått, om hvordan dumhet, egoisme og ignoranse leder til den totale ruinen. 

Biden kan i dag få Trump drept uten å bli straffet. Dette er noe som er helt uakseptert, og et grov overgrep på den amerikanske nasjonalbevisstheten, som det amerikanske folket må realisere.