Nah, because he's a Democrat. SCOTUS would rule that was a violation of his presidential duties... they left that ruling incredibly vague so that they can be the authority.
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
137 points (92.0% liked)
No Stupid Questions
35712 readers
2099 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah he would have to also kill a few supreme Court justices
You could argue that his oath of office requires it. But yes the Supreme Court only meant this power to be used by people they approve of
That's why you have to start with the Supreme Court. Got to grease the skids so to speak
If he did, he'd sacrifice himself as a lib SC would find him not immune. I'd do it.
Look at the Trump trials, he could eke it out until the end
But now that the “official act, fuck you” defense is valid, he can get the Tribunal of Six to come to the White House for an urgent meeting, lock the door, pull out a .44 magnum, and shoot them all in the face as an official act, and per their own decision, it would be legal. Moreover, he’d be defending the United States and the Constitution from clear and present domestic enemies who are openly trying to undermine both of those things. So it’s not just him saying that, but an actual, real action that he would be personally taking in direct and clear support of his oath of office.
Low-key crossing my fingers that that very meeting takes place on Jan 5th of next year.
I think he could make a compelling argument justifying it if Trump were to win the election, a sort of Julius Caesar part deux. I think you could make the case that American democracy as we know it would end if Trump were elected president and that in order to protect democracy, his assassination was needed. However, in doing so, American democracy as we know it would still end because Biden would be opening the door to domestic political assassination being in a president's tool belt, so it's kind of a catch-22. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. So really, the only thing that will "save" democracy is if people vote for Harris, that's where we're at as a country. I'd love to vote third party, I actually didn't care much for Harris before Biden dropped out, but the stakes are really too high this election to consider anything else.
You say this as if the next Republican president won't do this.
The best way to fix this is with Biden being the sacrificial lamb.
Basically he executes Trump via executive order, executes the conservative justices, all standing Republicans in the Senate. Then get enough states to pass referendums for a constitutional convention.
Do the overhaul of the constitution, solidifying human rights, separation of church from state, making fascism treason, make billionaires illegal, and, for kicks, universal healthcare.
Hey, don't wake me up from this dream, okay?
That's the night of the long knives. Literally nazi shit
The difference is that Hitler did it to solidify power within himself.
Biden would be doing it to solidify power within the People. Basically he would gain power to diffuse it. That's why I called him the Sacrificial Lamb.
There will always be populous movements and a desire to concentrate power within the elites. But we can make it more difficult to do so.
But would he be sitting as a defendant like trump was during his shit? Or could he just ignore it and just not show up?
To give a serious answer: The short answer is probably, the long answer is no.
The opinion was deliberately vague on that issue. A dissent said they could under Roberts' opinion, but Roberts calls that "fear mongering" without elaborating whether that's true or not.
It's also a pretty complicated opinion so bear with me. The whole thing comes down to this vague idea of official vs. unofficial acts which are supposed to be immune according to the court. Really, there's multiple factual allegations and the court said each one has some level of immunity (and if you think these are full of contradictions, I know):
- Asking the DOJ to pressure states to investigate obvious spurious "fraud" claims and pressure states to throw out their results, and threatening to fire them if they refuse - here Trump is "absolutely immune" because the DOJ is part of the executive branch and the president has power to fire them, I guess for any reason now.
- Trying to get Mike Pence to refuse the vote count and throw the whole country into a chaotic power struggle - presumptively immune, because the president and vice president can talk about their duties. Can be rebutted if the government can prove a prosecution wouldn't pose a danger of intrusion into executive branch functions, whatever the hell that means.
- Trump personally telling state officials to change electoral votes - here Roberts says there's no basis for Trump to claim immunity because there's no presidential power to try and coerce state officials. However, he then says it's up to the lower court to consider if it's official or not before proceeding, and is entirely unclear on who has the burden of proof here.
- Using twitter and a speech to organize and then start a riot at the capitol - similar to the above, the president has official duties relating to speaking but yada yada yada it's sent back to the lower court to decide whether this is official or not.
Conclusion: Ordering an assassination of a rival certainly sounds most like the first - the president has several official duties relating to giving military orders, and the military is part of the executive branch. The FBI is also part of the DOJ, so if Trump can order the DOJ to do something criminal, that itself could be an assassination. But as described in the article below, one could make an argument that no, the opinion doesn't actually say he do that with the military specifically, because congress has some powers relating to war (not convincing). However, to be fair to that opinion, this immunity ruling is such a stinker that lower and future courts will limit its holding as much as humanly possible. Plus seemingly contradictory aspects to it (Trump can order the DOJ to do things he can't do himself?) could be used to argue for exceptions to the overall immunity. But reading the opinion at face value, yes the president could order an assassination, and even fire generals who refuse to pass along those orders.
Longer answer though: This is the real world. If Biden gave such an order, it would likely result in a coup and an overthowing of the Constitutional order as a whole. And if order were somehow restored and Biden brought up on criminal charges, you could be your life that the 6-3 Republican majority on the court would find a way to either limit or perhaps overturn their prior ruling as it pertains to Biden.
For an alternative perspective on the same topic, here's a center-to-slightly-right-leaning law professor's take on this which does a pretty plausible job sane-washing the opinion.
First off, thank you for that write up. Would you mind sharing your opinion on 1x on trump and 6x justices simultaneously? At that point it's a coup or a culling, but it's a very loaded gun I don't want to hand to anyone.
The catch-22 is that the 3 liberal justices dissented from the opinion. So all 9 can be presumed to vote against Biden being immune for assassinating his opponent, and eliminating justices won't really help.
If it's an official act, yes. It's not hard to tell a story where it becomes an official act. I I think he could still be impeached FWIW.
Because of Trump's unhinged tactics, we know that top military leaders and (presumably) TLA bigwigs have discussed what they would do in situations like this. What you're describing is very close to a coup d'etat, and in a situation where they get ordered to perform such an action, do they do it? What was framed as a question of SCOTUS rulings becomes, in reality, the question, "Am I willing to throw this entire democracy away on this President's absurd orders?" Every high-up in government knows this... They signed up to serve the people, not a dictator.
Of course we have no idea how each person would act, but my point is that pure legality is only one challenge Biden would have to overcome if he wanted to do such a (horrible) thing.
What if Biden himself pulled the trigger?
Then the same rules apply, but for the people looking to arrest him.
Do they though? One could ask if it is within the president’s official authority and responsibilities to personally carry out an assassination. I think they’d rule that it is not an official act, because in no way is that part of the office.
they left it to 'congress' to decide what is and isnt an official act. so, congress being run by a bunch of conservative morons would indict biden but let trump walk for the exact same behaviors.
The question really is whether or not the assassination would be an official act.
Would the victim be officially dead?
It would be incredibly stupid to assume they'll play even by their own rules. They're just voting that because it was enough to buy Trump time and leave everything "up to interpretation". It's not like it was going to help Biden in the short term like it did Trump
No, he cannot legally, because it would be a corrupt and partisan SCOTUS deciding if that is an official act.
That's assuming if Biden was to issue such an order as things stand right now.
If Biden really wanted to abuse his newfound powers of immunity, his very first official act would be making sure the supreme court won't be standing in his way for any subsequent official acts.
I mean yes, but more often than not, people generally DON"T wanna kill other people
I would like to know the percentage of high level politicians that are psychopaths.
I kind of don't want to know, because the real answer would probably be terrifying.
You're probably right.
CEOs, too.
Also school teachers. Pastors. Cops.
Let’s add librarians for contrast.
I have met many, many school teachers in my adult life and the vast majority of them are lovely people. There has only been one who I'd describe as a psychopath.
Alcoholics? Absolutely. It's a toss-up between teachers, lawyers and nurses for the hardest-drinking group of motherfuckers I've ever known.
it's a profession that gives a position of authority over others; and specifically over people who are quite vulnerable.
You may not have met them, but there are teachers that are psychopaths. Many of those teachers who are also psychopaths might also come off as quite lovely, too.
I feel like maybe you don't know any teachers. The fact that you lumped them in with politicians, ceos, and police is, quite frankly, batshit insane
So... you're response to "hey, you may not know any, but there are evil teachers out there," is ... to call me a liar? to call me batshit insane?
Interesting.
Lets get the simple thing out of the way first.
I said:
it’s a profession that gives a position of authority over others; and specifically over people who are quite vulnerable.
You may not have met them, but there are teachers that are psychopaths. Many of those teachers who are also psychopaths might also come off as quite lovely, too.
and you think that statement is "batshit insane".
If you look at the list, excepting librarians, every single one of those careers provides people with authority over others, many of whom are vulnerable for one reason or another; and some amount of disciplinary or punitive powers. Are you saying that teachers don't have a significant amount of authority over students? that they don't have disciplinary powers over students (even if it's highly regulated,)
Consider how many teachers you know, and how many teachers there are. A quick websearch says that there's about 3.2 million public school teachers in the US, at an average ratio of about 15 students per teacher. Are you really going to tell me, in your morally superior screed, that I'm bat shit crazy for assuming that some of those teachers are in fact psychopaths? or sociopaths? or people who display tendencies attributed to such?
Edit: the reason I tagged librarians on there at the end, "for balance"is because they're similarly public servants (like most the list except CEOS), but don't necessarily have that control over people, and certainly no power to discipline anything at all. IMO this would provide something of a baseline. maybe not the best baseline, but something of one.
(end of edits). but as to your assertion that I don't know any teachers. I sit in on school board meetings when ever I have the chance- I can usually make about half of them, maybe a bit less. many of the meetings are of the general 'we'd like to hear from the public'; or are of specific things (like responding to particular incidents that happened in the school, etc..) Some of the stuff that has been said by teachers; either as what passes for testimony, or during what's basically an open mic:
- a girl was raped by other students, this particular teacher said it was 'god's will' that she was raped; and that it was because she was [sexually promsicious]. This was said with her sitting in the hearing, with her parents.
- one particular teacher keeps insisting he needs to be allowed to carry a firearm in class. his justification is that schools have become more violent and it's unsafe; while working in a district that is one of the safest and best funded (and to be honest, quite heavily policed,) districts in the state; and when directly asked, unable to articulate any incident in any of the district's schools that would have justified the use of firearms; and that several SRO's, including the ones stationed at HIS school have now decided to show up to these meetings, in uniform, specifically to call him out on his bullshit.
- Significant numbers of teachers speaking on book bans and removals from the library; many on both sides of the issue, the ones on the wrong side of it can't help but let their homophobia leak out, along with being quite deranged.
- In a similar vein, another teacher insisted that [muslim students] needed to be removed to an alternative school (which among other students, is where students with excessive disciplinary problems are sent.). Their justification was because they were all terrorists.
- that the best way to addressa perceived problem of lack of discipline is to allow teachers to use corporal punishment. in her words, "spare the rod, spoil the child." This was at a hearing where she was facing termination for assaulting a student, whose sole offense was refusing to recite the pledge of allegiance- which is not, and has not been a thing here for decades; at least as far back as I was a student.
- a handful times there were hearings about inappropriate teacher-student relationships. one thing they all seemed to have in common was that the teacher was emotionally manipulative and coercive. it might not be the most common thing in the world, but it does happen. there's probably a teacher in your school (or kids school), abusing a student in an ongoing relationship as we speak.
- teachers who also happen to be coaches justifying abusive coaching practices (like not providing heat breaks or access to water, just to start things off.).
- Teachers who happen to be coaches excusing away sexual abuse perpetrated by their student athletes.
- Teachers that excuse/justify/otherwise argue for dehumanizing students over bathroom access. for a variety of mostly-bullshit reasons.
- Teachers that allow, encourage, or otherwise fail to report target harassment by students over one form of bigotry or another.
And that's all just in the few years I've made a concerted effort to be in there, and just what I remember.
Maybe my school district is the odd one out. But I rather doubt that very much.
Did you even read my comment before posting 9 paragraphs? I didn't say it was batshit insane to claim that there are sociopathic teachers. I said it was batshit insane to compare the rates of sociopathy in teachers to the rates among politicians, ceo's, and police. Which it is.
I apologize for starting this discussion, but it is quite interesting.
I feel i must add my anecdotal testimony. I've gotten the opportunity to teach high school for a few years, my mom was a grade school teacher her entire career, and my grandparents owned a preschool when i was a kid. So I have gotten to know a lot of teachers from every level of education. I also spent far too many years earning my degree while transferring amongst 3 different schools.
I can't say that i have encountered a single teacher that really concerns me of being a psychopath. I am not a psychologist, and I'm sure it can be well hidden. But in my experience, teachers only become teachers because they really care and want to help other people.
Regardless, this discussion is purely hypothetical. Unless we want to start a national registry for psychopaths/sociopaths.
Did you even read my comment before posting 9 paragraphs? I didn’t say it was batshit insane to claim that there are sociopathic teachers. I said it was batshit insane to compare the rates of sociopathy in teachers to the rates among politicians, ceo’s, and police. Which it is.
You've clearly not read any of mine.
This is now the third time that I've explained why people are "lumped in" on that list. And that is that everyone on that list exerts control, or strong influence over other people. (Cops and politicians, the general public. CEO's their employees, and the public that interacts with their company or is impacted by it, Teachers... their students.)
That is the thread which lumps them together. Having that authority over others is possibly what attracts psychopaths/sociopaths/NPD types to jobs like being a cop, being a politician, or pastor or CEO. Or, possibly, yes, being a teacher.
You'll also notice, that that list of careers only really includes the sorts of jobs that are- or have historically been- viewed in a positive light. As honorable, or 'pillars of the community'. I'm guessing you would generally describe teachers as "selfless" and "caring", maybe even "highly empathic"; but, uhm. not to put too fine a point on it, before his arrest Dennis Rader would have been described exactly as that. he was a Church President, a Boy Scout Leader, and an AF vet. Of the people that knew him, it was almost impossible to believe that Dennis Rader was the BTK killer.
So yes. I would be very interested to see a study that looks at teachers and how many are psychopaths; as well as everyone else on that list. I'm going to assume teachers fall somewhere above a baseline of the rest of the population; and somewhere below the other professions on the list. I suggested Librarians as a sort of control group, because they also happen to be a career path that people look at as largely positive or honorable; but lacks any real authority over others.
I feel pretty confident in saying that your assertion is wrong, and insane lol
So I’m crazy.
Good to know you won’t actually respond to the thing I’ve said four times and instead continue with personal attacks.
Yeah, repeating the same thing and expecting something different … I can see that. Cheers.
Why would I engage? I obviously find your premise insane. Additionally, you have misstated my SHORT comments several times. I never called you insane, I said the argument is insane. Which it is.
He could not be prosecuted for it, but my understanding is that the people who killed Trump could be prosecuted because it's still a crime (it's just that Biden can't prosecuted for it)
Couldn't Biden in turn just pardon the killer?
Technically he could but then that was always a possibility of any federal crime going back to the inception of the US
States have their own murder statutes. Federal law would be irrelevant.
If you start with the answer you want to get and "find" the construct the law thereafter you can find anything. You can even find one thing one day, another the next, and yet another the day after. The supreme court is a Republican tool which has little legitimacy.
They would find for their side wherein they reasonable feel it won't harm them or the future or trespass beyond their own personal opinions not on what the law says but what they think it ought to be.
Except, he probably doesn't agree with that scumbag ruling. I'm pretty sure if he did the supreme court would reverse course on it. Its not like they have any integrity.