Will this ruling kill Trump's criminal trials? 📰 Get 40% off of Ground News: legaleagle.link/groundnews ⚖ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
It is so much WORSE than simply Presidential immunity. It is extended to shielding the office from the investigation. All of the evidence the prosecutor gathered against Nixon would NOT be available according to this ruling. The president can quid-pro-quo accept monetary compensation for pardons and they can't even be investigated because that is an official act. It is stupefying. Even if the President doesn't do it - he can convince someone to do it on his behalf and then immediately pardon them. Perform criminal acts on a widespread scale to allow for the invocation of marshal law, suspension of elections and extending the term indefinitely ... it's all permissible.
My Con Law professor told my class on day one: “The Constitution is whatever 5 out of the 9 justices say it is.” I thought he was being dramatic, but I soon learned otherwise. Now look….
Well, yeah because that's exactly their job, to interpret the constitution, and they're the final arbiters so they can't be corrected by anyone other than themselves or their successors, barring an obvious constitutional amendment.
The constitution should, in fact, be whatever 7 out of the 13 justices agree. Four years ago. The fact that Biden refused to balance the courts is probably his greatest blunder.
it's almost as if the whole "we're just going with a gentlemen's agreement not to stack the supreme Court with corrupt nitwits" has always been a bad idea
I find it very troublesome that some lawyers stood in front of the supreme court and basically said "we need the president to have legal immunity because otherwise he can't do his job" because that implies that the job is just, all crime. And apparently the majority of the justices didn't have a problem with that reasoning. If the president's job is just crime, then maybe it needs to be a different job.
I think these lawyers are confusing the president with the Godfather. But yeah, the implication that a president _has_ to commit criminal acts in order to be effective is staggering.
The president has to make war decisions, if the president didn’t have immunity, Obama would have to be charged for the children in the botched Syria attack too, think through the full scope.
The suggestion that the President has the powers of a King is actually understating it. If we’re basing it on the monarchy up to 1776, the notion that the “King can do no wrong” was rejected in English Law in 1215 under the Magna Carta, and the UK had been a Constitutional Monarchy since the Bill of Rights 1689, which restricts the the Sovereign from ignoring laws outlined by parliament without explicit parliamentary exception. That means the Sovereign had NO RIGHT, by law, to order the death of anyone unless mandated by the British judiciary via laws passed by parliament - aka, a normal system of law. This too has since gone since the abolition of capital punishment in the UK I know Americans on both political wings love to use King George III as the symbol of the big bad tyrant, but the truth is, he never had the level of power or lack of accountability that the modern office of President of the United States has. The only factor the King has over the President is that the position is hereditary.
@@sadaasdafa8635 Monarchy in Europe took different forms. The French Sun King is my example of absolute monarchy. He concentrated huge amounts of the state into the crown. Others were often a wonky balance. Definitely not democracies but a balance between low and high nobility, the church, independent farmers, town mayors, city-leagues and other actors. And a royal household with different people.
American national myths, including American exceptionalism and self-righteousness, matter more than facts. Charles I and James II show no king of England, Scotland, and Ireland, well before George III of the UK, could act with impunity.
@@bayousbambino427 this was enforced towards its own citizen yes, but the USA is a colony thus it has nor representation in Parliament, meaning the king in sense could act without impunity. I'm sure it was more complicated than this, but the basic underlying principle still stands. American myth, exceptionalism and self-righteousness do exist, but perhaps this isn't the best showcase of it?
@@million5666 What? The execution of Charles I and exile of James II was "enforced toward its own citizens"? That's nonsense. You just gave away the evidence that George III could not act with impunity: Parliament. The supremacy of parliament was established in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The inability of the monarch to enter the House of Commons is the expression of that supremacy. Parliament controlled and controls the purse. Parliament passed and passes the laws of royal succession. Parliament could, can, and did pass acts reducing the monarch's powers. That's _exactly_ how we ended up with constitutional monarchy today. Parliament made the taxation laws in the 18th century as much as it does today. Parliament passed the laws outlining representation in parliament and who can vote. George III did not rule, he reigned. Thus, "the tyrant King George" always has been a complete and utter myth, now woven into America's narrative of its own beginnings. Hence, it's alive today and affects Americans' ideas of kingship, even in the 21st century, as we can see throughout US media in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. But, Americans also think England is a sovereign country, more than 300 years after it became part of the United Kingdom. So, how much can we really expect?
It’s not like they didn’t get away with it anyway trump didn’t actually do anything illegal maybe tax Real Estate fraud ? Who cares that was mostly BS cuz they could not get him on anything else Look at what bill Clinton did nothing happened to him if anything his victim was targeted by congress and Hilary specifically And if anyone should be in prison George bush should
Not really Supreme Court can always change the decision too much fear mongering. The Congress and Supreme Court still can impeach and for Supreme Court create new precedent. Nothing really new.
@@angie-gz4yg A proper president would maliciously comply. Send in Seal Team 6 to every treasonous court justice, select new ones and have them reverse the decision. There should be absolutely zero tolerance for this behavior. Examples need to be made.
"If the parent isn't immune to child abuse laws they couldn't raise their kid." "If the player isn't allowed to cheat he might not want to play" It reminds me of that one American politician that talked about how the fact they killed an innocent puppy meant they can make tough decisions.
@@shonklebonkle324That one politician you're referring to would sing a hell of a different tune if someone who murders that same politician's son or daughter argues that if they aren't immune from facing criminal charges, they can't be a regular contributor to society.
@@travis1240I used to feel sad for Trump supporters because they are getting duped by someone wouldn't think twice about throwing any one of them in front of a bus if it made him a dollar. (Kinda similar to how Homelander in the newest season of The Boys ordered Black Noir and The Deep and A-Train to kill those 3 fans of Himelander, despite them being his most loyal followers, all as a way to assert his dominance over Noir and Deep and A-Train, and also to use their corpses as a way to try to frame Starlight supporters for murdering Homelander supporters). But.... Now that I have seen Trump supporters continue to defend him and double down on everything he does, I have come to realize that these people don't deserve pity because this is who they really are deep down in the core. They WANT this. So my sadness and pity has now turned into fury and intense disdain and judgment.
They weren't screaming because they actually wanted a smaller government. They just didn't like that the past government was headed towards a more "woke" route. Now that it's headed down a more far right path they want the government to have their hands in everything. They never believed in freedom for America. Only for themselves. If they see their neighbor losing rights then to them it means they're winning.
They only want it to be small government when they can't oppress others. When they're in charge then suddenly they want government hands in everything.
In Europe that's pretty much the norm, the argument being that being liable for political decisions would make a lame duck out of government, because unpopular but necessary steps could not be taken if the politician behind it has to fear prison or financial ruin. Obviously, if a politician here were to straight up murder someone, that immunity would be lifted by parliament.
This cannot be further from what our founding fathers would’ve wanted. No matter what you want to say, they did not want a leader who was immune from the law.
Not even modern day Kings have immunity from prosecution. The English, nearly 400 years ago executed their monarch for excercising powers beyond his prerogative
Nixon once said, "No, I'm saying that when the President does it, it's not illegal!" That statement ruined him. Now it appears the Supreme Court has decided to officially agree with him.
The majority judges of this Supreme Court are setting a slow-motion coup and the officials that were actually elected by the people are just letting it happen.
As someone who isnt even an american, this is terrifying. I would remind everyone that the Nazis did everything within the laws of germany thanks to loopholes like this.
How did the Supreme Court even get this kind of power? Someone should have been able to block this kind of insanity. The need to have someone keeping them in check and term limits needs to be a thing.
Well, see, if we had a properly functioning Congress, then the Supreme Court wouldn’t feel as emboldened to get away with making these rulings because Congress would impeach them. BUT because we’re stuck with the Congress we have today, there would NEVER be enough votes to impeach any of these corrupt fuckers from their seats. So here we are, in radical limbo just hoping to fall off a cliff and let it end.
The lack of terms was to ensure that they don’t have to bother pandering to a specific party or person to keep their position. Effectively putting them above politics, obviously personal bias does still exist as we see
@@RobGenson Adding on to this, from what I know of the process of procedures and powers of Congress and the Judiciary per the Constitution and past precedent, Congress does indeed have the power for this, but it also needs support from the majority of the states. Anything passed by Congress not a constitutional amendment relating to the supreme Court could be ruled unconstitutional and void by the Supreme Court. Not saying it will happen every time but it is one of many possible outcomes. There for a constitutional amendment would be needed to say this is now on the constitution, and this is the grey area I am not entirely certain though greatly intrigues me, is that I don't think a Constitutional amendment can be removed by anyone other then the passage of another constitutional amendment, per what happened with prohibition amendments. By that precedent I go forward and say it is likely that the supreme Court can't overrule anything that is constitutionally amended to the US Constitution. Though I suppose a possibility could arise where they could potentially here cases in relating to it before passage. I have not ever came across anything saying otherwise, though I'm no expert and am speaking of what I know from information I learned over time. That might help further answer your question... The constitution outlined the roles of the Supreme Court, primarily as an interpreter of the laws. Though things are vague there as well, at least for my understanding. Take what I say as an opinion not fact however, I only speak from what I understand and I may be missing some facts that could warrant a different response.
When peaceful reform is impossible, violence is inevitable. I sometimes make a videogame reference in the form of Super Smash Bros, which doesn't give characters a "health meter" (hit points) but instead a "damage meter". So you never know how much you "have left" before a KO, or whether the next attack you take will _actually_ KO, you only know that it's more _likely_ to KO. To apply that here: We don't know how many peaceful alternatives we have left before someone, somewhere, breaks that ice -- we only know that due to political climate change that ice is getting increasingly thinner.
@@friedrichjunztAs if many of them wouldn't oppose Trump, too. After all, I remember a certain guy who keeps being honored despite his reasons for fighting the US Army, who was formerly a member of that army... now what was his name... Bob, right?
@@friedrichjunzt If memory serves, the American military is sworn to defend the Constitution against all foes, foreign and domestic. What makes you think they wouldn't side with democracy?
Fun fact the person who first pitched the idea of impeachment in US politics was Benjamin Franklin. And I'm paraphrasing here, he stated "we need a system of impeachment, because the traditional method of dealing with obnoxious leadership is often much more violent." It's almost like the founding fathers were aware that while human language and sentiment changes with time, human nature doesn't?
If a problem cannot be corrected with civility within the law, it will be corrected outside the law by any means necessary. That's the entire point of law. SCOTUS just abdicated their responsibility and in doing so have effectively kicked off a feedback loop of growing executive power.
The founding fathers were not anti-violence or violent reform. Just that it should happen only when the government had left no realistic avenue for change. Like this one!
@@Arrowatchim pretty sure they were against violent reform, judging it to only be a method of extreme last resort. Thats why there are release valves in the system.
@Arrowatch Or when their slaves got uppity, or natives wanted their land back, or the Whiskey Rebellion, or when they liked the look of British farmland in Canada...
@@balinthehater8205 agreed. Jefferson's "tree of liberty" quote wasn't an endorsement of violence so much as his belief that violent rebellion is periodically inevitable.
I mean... not just begging. As of that ruling, they *have* a dictator. The current one just happens to have been elected. The moment a republican gets into office somehow is the moment democracy permanenlty dies there, if nothing is done quickly.
@@KurisNiZai HE CAN'T BE IMPEACHED! That'd require evidence of the act for which an impeachment is being putforward....and it's likely an official presidential act...which is inadmissible.
Its so weird as a Swedish citizen to see this. Our elected politicians are afraid of the public/voters. Not the other way around. Elected people should fear the voters, the ones giving you your job...
I doubt your politicians generate cults of personality in order to stay in power no matter what they do because the country has an unwavering trust of him to be fair.
I love how [we found out] Roe v Wade was [going to be] overturned just before Mother's Day [even though the final ruling was in June] and now the president was ruled a king above the law just before Independence Day. [Edits for technical correctness added in the square brackets.]
It is messed up that a bunch of lower courts ruled differently and unanimously but 6 people get to just completely change the law. 6 people that are completely unaccountable.
Six people, who were put in office for life by the president, have overruled several lower courts, whose judges are elected for a limited term, and changed the law to make the president immune to basically ANY legal liability! The system is so insanely rigged!
We're way past overdue on the chop chop, French-style. It's only going to get worse from here. I wish it wasn't so difficult to immigrate to another country... But also I don't want to wait until we're forced to run to escape and the borders become sealed off. "It Can't Happen Here" is such a bogus notion, American exceptionalism has been our self-inflicted kryptonite from day one.
It's as difficult to feel empathy for you as it is to not look at the current political landscape and consider this country a (very bad) joke and the laughing stock of the world.
In order to ensure the security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first American Empire! For a safe and secure society! Courts : It's an official act! Sorry guys.
Tbh it was more about taxes they felt unjustified than a king in and of itself. It was less just "there is a king" and more "the king is treating us poorly and we have no other recourse." Not to say a lot of the Founding Fathers didn't have a very unique and mostly-gone-in-modern times view on government office as a duty to your countrymen and such. They definitely weren't fans of kings. Just that the big catalyst was a specific abuse that they likely would've rebelled against even if it came from an elected official.
Considering our Congress is just an oligarchy at this point, I'd take a king that over throws the system when he thinks he's upholding the ideals of old presidents. At least then the power that The People actually have might finally get to reform the government.
SCOTUS: "Presidents must has criminal immunity, or they could not possibly function as the President." The Rest of Us: "If that's the case, how did we go 250 years without Presidential immunity, and the Presidency still function?"
They are lying through their teeth, entirely aware that we know it's all a lie. Mechanisms to hold the Supreme Court accountable are woefully lacking though, so I don't think they're that worried about being caught in a lie.
We haven't. Presidents have been effectively immune from prosecution for decades with the Supreme Court refusing to hear unconstitutional cases and precedent has been set through Qualified Immunity for representatives of the Judicial Branch, including judges and police.
@@willfrankunsubscribed The last time we came close to a prosecution, a pardon ended it. The other time before that, the President died first. It hasn't come up much.
Everything we've been taught in school has been rendered null & void. We were always taught the Supreme Court was a group of unbiased judges that protect the land....Boy was that ever wrong.
and the last 2 judges selected by Trump shouldn't even have been pick, Trump made sure they favored him by selecting judges that in no other way would have been chosen
What's wild to me is -- Thomas especially has been on a knee-jerk rut, pulling things out of thin air to chastise. But he's as old as dirt. Why now object and rush to unset everything? He's answering questions nobody asked just to get gears moving in a different direction. I am no conspiracy nut but I think it's healthy to wonder why the same things he says are so wildly bad weren't bad the other millions of decades he's had a chance to say anything about it. May God have mercy on his soul.
@@vincentjohnflorio he's been caught accepting huge bribes for years, so they also made bribes legal now and he is looking to not get in trouble in any way
@@vincentjohnflorio There's more scrutiny than ever, and whenever he feels scrutiny, like Trump, he lashes wildly. Also KBJ is now sitting up there with him, and he don't like black people. The Uncle Ruckus of the Judiciary.
well all judges will have a moral bias, however, they are letting their political biases in way to much here. I don't think any judge 50 years ago would think the president should have immunity, but now look at it, they have a bias an are now saying a bunch of baloney to help out who they have a bias for.
@@brandonstone2754 "duties 'granted' to him" cmon you are not a child. You extend the duty you extend the protection. You extend the definition of the duty you extend the protection. Devon even says this.
Imagine fighting tooth and nail to leave an empire run by a king with legal immunities just to form a country run by an elected President with the same immunities. That’s tough.
You also forget that you sacrificed the life of several people to achieve this, the natives that are gone, the slaves that perished...all this was done in the name of freedom, sacrifices some insist were worth the cost... That cost, it was mourned. Now you are turning on your own.
Idk if it was run per say then. The king had some power but it was a constitional monarchy so alot of the running of the empire would have been from the king
@@n484l3iehugtil stop barking at the wrong people. One of the reasons we are in this and could get out of it is if we unite, especially since they WANT us to fight and comments like this only are detrimental to the discussion. You are achieving nothing with this kind of blame and you also have no idea what OP does or does not using just one sentence...
@@n484l3iehugtil It was less of a problem when the appointment system actually had checks and balances and wasn't just bypassed by the hyper-partisan politicians we have today...
@@vespuccini n484l3iehugtil has extensively stalked and followed mikelxanadu for over 20 years and have detailed notes of all of their opinions and public statements. I thought everyone knew about the rivalry between these two UA-cam commenters? Its astounding you can be here on the internet and not know this! /s
Long ago, I thought that the way the federal government was structured was a good check and balance against each branch. For the past several years, I've learned more and more how naive I was.
When I was a child playing with my friends, someone amongst our group would sometimes declare that they had "A shield that is immune to everything!", including myself on occasion. Each time it happened though the rest of the group would quickly get frustrated, stop playing, and collectively agree that nobody is allowed to be immune to everything. Even super heros have to have weaknesses. The fact that we could understand at six that absolute immunity was unfair but SCOTUS seems to have missed that is as amusing as it is disheartening.
It's not about fairness for these people comrade. It's about the gathering and usage of power. Whether that be for personal usage of bullying others, or those too religious to recognize how utterly wrong this is. There are people who have been handed everything and take it not for granted, but a right that they will pursue for themselves. Then there are the outright sociopaths that just flat out don't care and being the type of people that should simply never be given power over others. Also there's always that one kid who thinks that everyone else is just an idiot for not allowing them to play an unassailable part rather than recognizing the rights of their group.
@@wormwoodbecomedelphinus4131Its unfortunate many of the most competent and intelligent individuals in our country know well enough to not want to be involved in politics and deal with the headache. Especially these days when if youre trying to be fully moral youre fighting against the rest of the system. While many of the people most likely to seek these roles in government and accept their responsibilities, do so only for the powers that they can gain and exploit for themselves and their associates. They end up ignoring their duties in said roles, abusing their position while reaping the rewards, and make it harder for those trying to operate with good intent.
For nearly 250 years we haven’t needed to carve out this level of immunity for Presidents and they seemed to be able to function in their role. What changed?
Democrats deciding to prosecute the president is what changed. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, arguably the most unconstitutional (and therefore illegal) acts in presidential history. Who prosecuted him? No one. I think for all the hubbub about this, the D's neglect one fact: Trump left. Sure, he whined about it, called it unfair, biased, etc. But in the end, no one had to remove him from office physically. Had he been a true dictator, we'd be living in the US of Trump right now, as we speak. He can't proclaim himself dictator unless he has full support of the military and law enforcement behind him. He doesn't have that. The military takes loyalty oaths to the US Constitution, not the President. If he orders or performs an unconstitutional act, officers have the right and duty to refuse to comply with the order. And if he DOES have the full support of the military and law enforcement, then we're screwed regardless of what the Supreme Court says.
@@AshesOwOAshes Bush, Obama, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, the other Bush the whole to the presidential cabinets. The only thing this does is reaffirm the status quo want change? Have the legislature perform that. The job of government is to govern. Roe Vs. Wade that's able to be legislated by the legislature named congress in the now before the election. Except nobody cares they're making too much money. Avarice corrodes one nation under fraud. Don't be a knucklehead
It's easy to watch this from the UK and think "wow, america just keeps getting worse" and then carry on about my business as if it doesn't affect me. And then I remember how many american military bases there are on foreign soil around the world, and how much power (both soft and hard) the US exerts here and elsewhere beyond it's borders. This isn't just a blow for American democracy, it a blow for democracy worldwide. It's not just another step towards facism in the states, it affects us all.
This isn't a change. Every president has always had this. Its been that way for over 200 years. you can google it yourself Just type in Presidential immunity and its the second link. ArtII.S3.5.1 Presidential Immunity to Suits and Official Conduct
Holy smokes... you people are so lost in your bubble it's ridiculous. I'm going to bookmark this thread specifically so I can comeback in 4 1/2 years and point out how poorly this video is going to age. 🤣🤣
@@Ranger1PresentsVirtualRealms I don't think there'll be an internet to come back to in 4 and a half years if a Trump presidency takes advantage of this in the extreme ways they could.
So putting aside the whole "SEAL Team 6" thing, because they might rightly disobey an unlawful order, it is now possible for a President to say "I hope some patriotic American does what needs to be done with respect to [Political Opponent], and when they do, I'm going to pardon them," and that President would enjoy total immunity for that and any resultant action. Correct?
@@CraigThomler Well technically speaking, if a political rival's views or stance are seen as a threat by the POTUS at that time, then ordering a drone strike on said opponent then falls under official acts.
Going by that logic: 1. The president sends the national guard to arrest and dispatch the current sitting SCOTUS justices. 2. The President can now install new military justices to the SCOTUS benches because 3. If any congressmen objects to these actions, the President can arrest and dispatch them with military power. Immune, immune, immune. All three branches are now under the executive branch.
people say its unfair that the president is above the law, but the law (constitution) has only been in place for just over 200 years. everyone who lived and died b4 that were also above the constitution since it didnt apply to them (not yet written). so it isnt far fetched to give president full imunity. on the topic of your logic. sure, maybe he can do your 3 step model. but also remember, it can take 1 bullet to be unalived from 1 military person. president is never immune from death (no one is).
Indeed. My thought was "go arrest them all and then see what their opinion is....." They'd all happily sit in jail and sit by watching the Prez deprive them of due process. Because they love such an energetic Executive. Madness.
Because they are just as corrupt as he is. He put them there for this reason. They don't give any fcks about anything else, their power resides with him, so they will give him unlimited power, and he will return the favor.
Does the ruling apply to what POTUS does *himself only*? E.g. POTUS cannot be prosecuted for ordering an assassination, but whoever carries it out CAN be prosecuted?
As a citizen of an ex totalitarian country: I’m absolutely terrified. American folks, demand a change while you still have the rights to do so. I’m dumbfounded that apparently no one has learned from our mistakes. Open a history book and look at what we had to endure and just how hard it was to fight for our freedom: we paid for it in blood. And if you are so fond of freedom, don’t let the same thing happen to you
This is terrifying and should terrify the world... No other dictator or totalitarian ruler has had a Military of the US's magnitude behind them. A Military that has bases all over the world. What is to stop our president from annexing whatever he wants?
There are massive structural problems with large scale protests in the United States, starting with the fact that we are a huge nation, physically separated from each other. Vast rural sections of this country have enormous political power, enough that Donald Trump may win after losing the popular vote by tens of millions of votes. Furthermore, in the urban centers which are largely democratic and pro-democracy, Pro-Diversity, and pro Liberty, the police forces are largely made up of fascists from the suburban outskirts, making large-scale protest in the city both dangerous and rather pointless. Telling everyone who agrees with you that you are mad doesn't change anything.
We need two new Constitutional Ammendments: No member or officer of the government either elected or appointed is immune from criminal prosecution. Supreme Court members shall serve a term no longer than 10 years.
@hewdelfewijfe "good-faith execution of their duties" is a dangerous wording, as it puts the definition of "good faith" into the hands of the courts which leaves us where we are now.
@@isaacwoodard2151 - An Amendment to the Constitution is never the solution to anything since the ability to pass an Amendment that is split politically is impossible.
Lol America will not survive the next 4 years. Goodbye the world, we decided that because eggs were a little expensive we had to give one of the most reprehensible men in the world an all day free pass to become practically a diety.
This is how democracy dies: not with a bang, but a whimper. It's not immediate, it's slow. It's not grand, it's insidious. No matter your party or platform, if you are American and in fact, if you live in ANY democratic country, what has been done with this ruling is a death rattle of democracy and the entire basis in which America as a nation was formed. This removes the KEY principals the founders of this country waged a revolution upon, and built our constitution around: that all men are created equal, and no one individual is above criminal law. This is, at its core, a betrayal of everything this country has ever represented. And if you think this is a win for your party, you are a sad, naive fool. It opens the door for any nefarious opportunist to convert this country into an autocratic dictatorship, regardless of their own ideological platform. This is how many tyrannical dictatorships began, including those that remain our enemies today, such as russia, north Korea, and even Saddam's regime we spent 15 years fighting to dismantle. This opens the door to the wolves, and leaves no legal defense for the people. I do not tend to use the slippery slope fallacy, but in this rare and deeply damaging case, this is the DEFINITION of a slippery slope. This is NOT the end of this continued push to dismantle the checks and balances that preserve our democracy, and unfortunately, I fear this country will only come to fully realize the gravity of these series of horrifying mistakes as the betrayal they are when it is far, far too late. Remember this: Germany did not become the Nazi empire it was overnight. It did not happen through one act alone. It was a gradual process of eroding systems put in place to ensure a democratic process, a gradual adoption of extremist ideology that redicalized and incensed just enough of the wider populace to overthrow that democracy, and as each gear shifted in the wrong direction, Germany slipped into a catastrophic Nazification that led to the worst War the world has ever known, more death than a human brain is capable of comprehending, and decades of fallout we STILL haven't recovered from. What this is, is an open door to a dangerous void in which power of the people is stolen away, and we are ruled by kings who hide behind a false veil of authority and justice. What is "just" becomes what is perceived as just by a single individual or minority group, and the voice of our people is silenced. I cannot celebrate Independence Day in good faith because our democracy is on life support and while many radicalized Americans see this as a victory for *their* party, the truth is, this is a loss for every American, whether they are aware of this or not. I would be just as disturbed by this ruling no matter what party or platform pushed for it because this is the death of a country for the people, and there is no longer any sense of accountability for a terrorist leading this country into its own brand of Nazification. As it's been said before, you either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. This is what happens when unstoppable power meets no resistance, and in the end, it will drag us all down with it. Today, I mourn the dying gasp of America, and this long night gas grown ever darker. My other home, Ukraine, is already fighting for survival against one tyrant hellbent on destroying the core principals of democracy and genociding my cultural roots. How, my other home is succumbing to the insidious influence of this enemy, and Putin is sure to celebrate this SC ruling as a great victory. I pray Americans never come to know what true authoritarianism and oppression is, but each day, my hope that they will remain privileged enough to live in ignorance and stupidly support Russia because they do not know what Russia truly is.... that hope is dying. That being said, be it in Ukraine or America, I will NEVER submit to authoritarian rule, I will ALWAYS fight for democracy, and I will NEVER be silenced, even if it kills me. I will scream at the top of my lungs for all my brothers and sisters who were silenced, and I will never give up hope that the echoes of their ghosts and our fury will ring true through the ages until a new Beacon is lit and carried by those who will topple the very regime we fight so valiantly to prevent from coming to fruition. Today, I weep, but tomorrow, I plan.
So eloquently spoken. It is so sad that our nation has fallen so far. I can't even say we should use the very powers that SCOTUS has declared against them, because then we are no better than them. They have created a situation in which it doesn't matter who wins: all of America will lose, in the long run. We will become the very monsters against whom we once stood alongside the rest of the world to lay low. And we have fallen for the dangerous rhetoric of an unhinged narcissist who simply wishes to see the world burn because it ridiculed him in public.
Maybe that plan should include getting citizenship in Australia. Thanks to this decision, it's not a matter of if USA will become an autocracy, but when. There's nothing you can do to change this. Even if Trump doesn't get elected next time around, the very next time a shameless psychopath like Nixon or Trump or Putin or Hussein get elected, they now can just choose to become dictator for life. And like all shameless psychopaths, they will.
I hate to be that guy, but this is like Star Wars when they ask "but sir, is this legal?" And Palpatine responds "I will make it legal". It may be protecting them from "official acts", but what the hell is an official act? And what stops a president from making something an official act?
I have a question. As a soldier in the military, we’ve been taught that we can disobey an order if it is deemed immoral or illegal. So what happens when the president tells a grunt to fire a live round at a civilian during a protest? Are they legally obligated to follow that order? If they don’t follow that order can they be subjected to a court martial? edit: i want to be clear and say i have a brain in between my ears and i’ve already been counseled multiple times for disrespecting my toxic leadership and i’m still standing, i asked this question to start a convo. keep it cordial 🙌
They probably could be subject to a court martial. But like any court case if could be dismissed if you felt like you had a legit reason to Dow shot you did.
A soldier can and should refuse to obey an unlawful order. If they follow that unlawful order, they can be criminally prosecuted. But the President could pardon them for that crime, and that use of the pardon power could never be used to later convict the (current or former) President of any crime. If the soldier follows the law, they could be court martialed. A good military court wouldn’t do that of course, but the President could also remove JAG officers from the chain of command until he got personnel who would be willing to do what he wanted. And he couldn’t be prosecuted for any such actions, and those new cronies could trust that the President could pardon them from any criminal liability. So yes, a soldier can refuse to go along with the criminal schemes of a President, but the deck is stacked against them in terms of whether the rest of the military and the justice system will adequately protect them for having done so. There is no deterrent for them breaking the law, so we just have to pray that our soldiers take their oaths seriously.
honestly people need to understand, this isn't even about Trump, its in general. This is about any potential presidential leader in the future that could have malicious intent and utilize this. What's worse is how much a president in the past has done that know one knows about, just what we know that some got caught for.. and yet here we are
From a foreigner this is literally the most ass backwards thing I have ever heard. The leader of a country, arguably the person with the greatest responsibility of any person in that nation, by virtue of their position and authority, ought be held to the highest legal and ethical standards period. I am an army officer. My responsibilities and authority and power are exponentially greater than those people who fall under my command or are of a lower rank than I am. As such my conduct, my interactions with law enforcement and the justice system need to be unimpeachable because I hold people's lives and well-being in my hands. The most junior of my subordinates, along with the rest of the general populace are subject to the laws of the land and possible consequences of breaking those laws as laid out within our criminal justice system. The leader of a country ought be held to a higher standard than what we ask of our most junior members of the military and the rest of the citizenry. Holding the belief that I can do whatever I want because I am in charge is the antithesis of leadership. Leadership at it's core is putting others' needs ahead of your own because you have chosen to be the person with the authority to effect sometimes devastating policies on people's lives. Anyone who doesn't understand this does not understand the fundamental principles of leadership. Leadership is a privilege, and if isn't approached as such it isn't leadership...it is a dicatatorship.
Amen. This has been the attitude I have brought with me throughout my career in management, and I've always respected and felt respected by those under my care. I also never saw myself as 'above' them simply because I had power they did not. I was there in a support role; they are the ones doing the work, I am just there to keep things running smoothly, keep everyone safe, and to handle issues if they arise. Leaders are support roles. If something cannot function without a leader, to any capacity, then it is non-functional and your leader is just doing the work instead of leading.
I think it's impossible to spell out how bad this is. Virtually every single thing a president does now can be made effectively legal by saying "as a presidential act" before they do whatever they want.
It'll be so fun to see people from 10'ish years on the future trying to say that this was a conspiration or something when someone they dont like abuse it...
Presidents have always ran on that presumption and not a single president has ever been held accountable for despicable actions during their term. While I don't like the ruling, literally nothing is going to change.
Entirely legal hypothetical: Biden Seal-Team-6-es the 6 majority conservative justices, allowing the 3 remaining supreme court justices to reverse the decision when he's criminally prosecuted. Would be an incredible legacy to leave. (He could also legally Seal-team-6 the currently-running former 45th president of the US, just to completely reset the election slate.)
I know right... Like yeah sure Trump is bold enough to break the law basically all the time, so a criminal is the best to be president? Like.. what? Lol. Their mental gymnastics knows no bounds.
Especially when that is what every president up until now has done, apparently none of them were able to do their job and we're only now getting around to changing it? Unlikely.
A President SHOULD hesitate when they are about to do something that they are afraid they might be prosecuted for later! In what world wpuld ANYONE think otherwise, let alone the supreme court justices!!?!? This is difficult to believe this is real.
Bogus cases don't help. Witness tampering charges do not fit the J6 committee obstruction accusation and even Jack Smith failed to notice. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: "I agree with the majority that §1512(c)(2) does not reach "all forms of obstructive conduct"" and is, instead, "limited by the preceding list of criminal violations" in §1512(c)(1)."
This absolutely scares me. Seriously. I'm a combat veteran and served in the US Army and fought for this country and now I'm looking to find a way to move out of it and never look back, because if this is the reality we're about to completely destroy this country in a way you can't possibly imagine. Only the worst of the worst will run for president because it's a get out of jail free card and right to do criminal activity without consequence. And here we tried to remove a president for getting head in the oval office. Now we're going to sanction and criminalize the office of the president? You have to understand and believe that the president is a human and often times driven by political motivation. If we put someone like Trump into that position with this protection in place there is absolutely nothing stopping him from doing everything he wants as a complete dictator. And yes, he would.
I agree! It would be tragic if your service was in vain. I, too, fear it might be time to get out. It's not going to be easy, but I'm going to be looking. Good luck, friend. 💙
I'm also extremely shocked that people of this country are willing to vote in a convicted felon. I may not agree with how the conviction went, but if I was convicted I wouldn't be able to argue the how or the judgement and then join the state troopers or the military, but I could apparently run for president? Have we completely forgotten what the difference is between right and wrong?
@@bulwulffcristole3235he is convicted of fraud. Essentially abuse of power. People want to the man with a list of abuses of power and now criminal conviction of such acts, more power. Insane.
@@jimsouthlondon7061This is the problem, partisan BS bots in all the comments. Democrats and Republicans should both be disgusted by the dismantling of democracy and all anyone can do is yell "Ha, my team is winning" as it all burns around them.
You first. Seriously, don't ask someone else to risk their life and sacrifice their own freedom to save you when you aren't willing to do the same yourself.
The supreme justices system feels so archaic for some reason. Like "okay, here are some old farts that the people didn't choose and they get to decide basically everything and they won't leave once put into place because getting rid of them is quasi-impossible"
As an Eastern European, I can say with absolute certainty this is the type of stuff you get right before becoming the next Russia. Please, people of the US, don't let your country fall to the corrupt, the zealous, and the numb. The world is in your hands, voters.
Oh half the nation actually DO want to become Russia, without knowing what it actually is like. And when US BECOMES like Russia, they will realize their mistake too late. And ALL the world will suffer for it.
To quote a Jacobin article by Seth Ackerman: It stands to reason that a document drafted by a coterie of gilded gentry, openly contemptuous of “democracy” and panicked by what they saw as the mob rule of the 1780s, would seek to constrict popular sovereignty to the point of strangulation. Thus, brilliantly and subtly, the system they built rendered it virtually impossible for the electorate to obtain a concerted change in national policy by a collective act of political will. The Senate is an undemocratic monstrosity in which 84 percent of the population can be outvoted by the 16 percent living in the smallest states. The passage of legislation requires the simultaneous assent of three separate entities - the presidency, House, and Senate - that voters are purposely denied the opportunity to choose at one time, with two-thirds of the Senate membership left in place after each election. The illogical electoral college gears the whole combat of presidential elections around a few, almost randomly determined, swing states that happen to contain evenly balanced numbers of Democrats and Republicans. And the entire system is frozen in amber by an amendment process of almost comical complexity. Whereas France can change its constitution anytime with a three-fifths vote of its Congress and Britain could recently mandate a referendum on instant runoff voting by a simple parliamentary majority, an amendment to the US Constitution requires the consent of no less than thirty-nine different legislatures comprising roughly seventy-eight separately elected chambers.
It's really funny to think the majority quote Federalist 70 in the decision, but Federalist 69 says that "The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law." Both 69 and 70 were written by Hamilton, and it's safe to say that "absolute immunity" does not constitute the intended message. There's also the fact that the Federalist papers aren't really law either and just opinion, but who's counting.
Correct, and you're in defense of Trump." Impeached, tried, and, upon conviction ... would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law." Please find a better source of news, UA-cam channel: Robert Gouveia Esq.
I don’t think I’ve EVER seen one of Devin’s videos before where he’s so obviously so been angry, scared and shocked. As he should be. What happened this week is utterly terrifying, and I say that as someone who isn’t in the US but in Europe. This judgement affects the entire world, not just America.
thought so as well, usually he tries to be far more neutral in reporting this stuff. For him to unashamedly share his opinions on this shows the gravity of what just happened
Pretty sure I saw this slip down the rabbit hole in a movie once... Oh yeah, Revenge of the Sith. 'this is how democracy dies, to thunderous applause'. Different house, same outcome. 🤦🏻♂️
I find the gaslighting in the ruling to be extra infuriating. Roberts says that Presidents are not above the law, and then creates a ruling that puts Presidents above the law. At least Taney was honest and upfront about the racism that underlay his ruling instead of pretending that he was making it in the interest of liberty and justice for all.
Agreed.. It reads like something out of Orwell, with big reasoned sounding language to obfuscate the utter dystopian tragedy of this. It's alarming how disingenuous. How much they prioritize presidents rights over the peoples rights. How much independence of Executive over checks and balances. All knowingly to take Congress out of the governing equation as the ultimate goal. For 6 individual people to be able to change the structure of government like this is mind boggling.
Yes, the double-talk is roughly at the level of 1984 newspeak. The main aim seems to me to create so much confusion that these justices and Trump can have things any way they choose.
You didnt read the rulling ? The president is subject to the constitution, his power comes from the constitution. Is it written in the constitution that he can do everything ? No! So such an action is purely and simply impossible. Do you know what we call a constitutional crisis? President CANT do what the constitution doenst give him ! The Constitution is more powerfull then him, and the consitution is to protect the US.
This is the same court that affirmed Korematsu in like 2018 while claiming they hadn't just affirmed Korematsu. But, you know, the decision text did in fact affirm Korematsu.
Judges have immunity from *all* charges while doing their job, and have for the entire existence of this nation. Crazy how Devon just blatantly forgot to mention that.
I'd also like to point out that under this ruling, one of the President's official powers/duties is to enforce the law, which means that he is immune in all matters of law enforcement more or less. Mass surveillance of any kind? Fine. Declare someone guilty of a crime without a trial? Immune. Extract false confessions through torture? He can't be punished. Execute every low level drug offender and illegal immigrant in the country? That's fine. Collectively punishing an innocent community for the crimes of a single resident? Nothing to stop him. Sterilize inmates so that even after release they can never have children? He can do that. Extend any criminal's sentence to life and then sell them as slave labour to another country? That's technically enforcing the law so he's immune. Basically, from my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this ruling essentially allows the president to do anything they want to any person who has been convicted or is even suspected to have committed any sort of crime, and that is as close to the definition of tyranny as I could possibly imagine. This truly is the worst case scenario, giving unfathomable political and legal power to one of the most problematic, selfish and disgusting people on the face of the planet. If hell really exists, I have no doubt they have a very special place reserved for Trump, his judges and every single one of the parasitic elites who put us and our world into this mess.
Scotus is in direct violation of their one MAIN DUTY to uphold the constitution. They should be found in direct violation of their contract and removed from office based on this disconnect
Let’s kick Biden out of office because one of his executive orders to forgive student loan debt overstepped the boundaries of his office according to the court. Also presidents can be removed without the courts we’re talking about legal liability. Don’t forget that legal liability also has nothing to do with whether an act itself is allowed and constitutional.
@I-did-September-11th Yes, you is that any lawyer worth their salt?That knows , the constitutional law should be speaking up against this and perhaps joining together in order to Bring this to the attention of the courts. Let's go shouldn't have much say in it because an An employee That violence company rules does not get a choice in the matter of whether they are fired or not
They lied under oath. They took bribes. One is a rapist. One is a cult member. One took more than $4 million from a billionaire and failed to disclose these gifts. There are more than enough reasons to depose the Supreme Court.
Listening to this was absolutely horrifying. I have family in the US and would like to live there myself one day, so it is especially scary for me as a German to essentially watch the Supreme Court set up an unimpeachable “Führer” position.
Technically, it is the spinelessness of U.S. Senators that makes the Presidency unimpeachable, because every vote on conviction in the Senate divides almost on party lines, preventing even the remote possibility of getting 2/3rds consent, not even when those members themselves were witnesses to Trump trying to overthrow them personally.
I like too remind people Article 2 says *Take Care* to faithfully enforce the laws. So yeah, the ruling makes no sense. The duty requires them to stop and think about their actions!
But essentially ONLY for Trump and other presidents they support. They left it open so that they can say NO to anything Biden does and make it criminal but make anything Trump does fully legal. The SC is no longer a court of law, it is a political priesthood with full political commitment to one party law and stare decisis be damned.
Because a jury must be impartial and unbiased above all else. SC judges are appointed to serve the constitution first, but they are picked by the president to give an edge to a particular party so many rulings fall along predictable partisan lines.
They also are all previously lawyers, so there is a presumption that these are educated legal minds with a large amount of previous experience serving as a lawyer or judge and thus know how to navigate these tricky issues. However that argument went out the window when actual congressional time was dedicated to understand what one of the then candidates named 'boofing'.
@@notpoliticallycorrect4774 Idk what either of those are. Your username, lack of content, and join date make me suspect you're a bot though. Perhaps it's you who should think for yourself instead of assuming that people who think differently just blindly follow shows they watch
Nothing Trump did is out of ordinary for a president. You may take that to mean "he's not that bad". What I actually mean is that "every president is a war criminal, and Trump isn't very remarkable in that".
Does anyone else remember when Mitch McConnell voted against impeaching Trump for Jan 6 despite saying he was obviously guilty but that the legal system was in place to prosecute him? Me neither.
Mitch McConnell ran the most successful coup d'etat in American history by filibustering Obama appointees then granting the appointments of Felon Trump. It contributed to this disaster.
Ah good ol' Mitch. Mr. "We shouldn't impeach him because these are clearly criminal acts" one day, then Mr. "You can't indict without an impeachment conviction" the next.
Well it was. And Mitch McConnell isn't a supreme court justice. So nothing about that was hypocritical (wrong of him, because you should also impeach him as well, but not hypocritical). He didn't even know about this case at the time, because it didn't exist, so he couldn't have had a secret conversation about this ruling before saying that.
I think , but I am unsure that they would argue that impeachment is a extra-legal way of stripping office from officers, potentially stripping immunity as well, but probably not.
Well that’s separate from criminal charges. Impeachment means that congress has voted to hold a trial to remove the president from office. Not send them to jail. That is still within their power.
i keep trying to explain to people that theres nothing stopping him and they are like "yes there is? we have rights and.." no we dont. thats the problem
The USA was founded on the principle that absolute monarchs were terrible for a nation and the rule of law should be absolute. How is it possible that the supreme court can ignore this foundational principle?
Corruption. There is no longer a separation between the branches of government, because the President appoints the justices instead of them being elected officials.
'cause they want a monarchy. they didn't grow up in one and don't realize how bad it is. they have some delusional romanticized idea of the past. the supreme court has proven they are not worthy to serve.
Ah the sweet irony right? It was never about freedom or sovereignty of the nation. It's about hogging power. The reign didn't end, just changed management.
It's one of those dissents where you know you're watching something that will go down as a dark chapter of history and can't do anything but hope it'll be undone in the future. Guess it makes sense she also quoted from Korematsu, which is another one of those cases...
Where did these idiots get the idea we wanted the President to be fearless?? A true leader acts in spite of fear. Fear is an evolutionary advantage. It causes us to weigh pros and cons. When cons are perceived to be absent (but only for the person making this choice) we are likely to choose less wisely for the good of all the people. What a mess!!!
When did conservatives and Republicans ever care about precedent, as well as the rule of law the constitution they just want to impose their deranged worldview on everyone else
American culture has historically gravitated towards things that looks cool over something that is actually useful. It's why our mascot is a scavenger, and the modes of transport we put on a pedestal are often the most costly. It's also why the animal a concerning number of people identify with is the one that either lays on its ass all day while its wife does all the work, or goes out of its way to steal food from much weaker predators.
Motive is the most important evidence "I assassinated my political rival because he was selling nukes to russia" and "I assassinated my political rival because he called me a meany poop head" now carry the exact same weight in court
@@kawkasaurous You can't even spell comprehension right. Or constitutional. "Your delusions and legal eagles lack of reading comprehention for consistutional matters is why there will be no middle lmao"
I'm glad as well that people are finally taking notice - after years of calling out the right's blatantly obvious maleficence, this is the first time the "oh, don't worry, it's no big deal, they won't do _thaat"_ is less prevalent. This is the natural conclusion of everything they've been doing for my entire life and more, and the willful ignorance up until now has been maddening.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” -George Orwell, Animal Farm
I’m applying to law school atm and I don’t see the point of paying 15k a semester to learn precedents that the court will just throw out whenever Harlan Crow tells them to
@@ivanvikalo4995 It's insanity, what was the point of the founding fathers breaking up the government so that the president wouldn't be able to amass power?
But who's the dictator? Trump promises to attack Biden and his family if elected, but if Trump is elected Biden has two months in office before Trump takes over.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." Courts of law are supposed to be the peaceful option. They are refusing to do their job.
When he failed to convict the wannabe king Donald for an attempted coup, McConnell's excuse was, don't worry; there's no need to go on record opposing a powerful sociopath who is subject to prosecution in the nation's courts. But a majority of corrupt toadies on the Supreme Court was also unwilling to try to limit, prevent or prosecute official acts of a lawless fascist or to affirm Americans have any rights our rulers are bound to respect. But don't worry,' historically the crimes and atrocities officially ordered by dictators couldn't happen here because ... "when the president does it that means it is not illegal"?
@@jaketheturkey7689 Idk about that...unless they plan to die before turning 74, they might just live to see it when the next president goes a little too far with their immunity. Keep in mind the 2 leading candidates for the presidency are also super old and neither are that great morally speaking...
@@davideaston6944 Clinton, of course, lied under oath, though he should never have been being asked those questions to begin with (Legally. ethically, he was pretty clearly in the wrong). Bush Jr. called into question the value of T-Bills, which could be argued to be treasonous, Biden is at least accused of mishandling classified documents, and Trump is pretty much using Title 18 as a checklist. That said... I'm having trouble thinking of any crimes committed by Obama or G. H. W. Bush. I can't speak to Reagan or Carter, as I wasn't really aware enough of the world to make any judgements at that point. Can you enlighten me as to the criminal conduct for those four?
Kevin Roberts just said, "we are in the midst of the second revolution". How is this not a declaration of War by the entire GOP? They use that word "war" constantly, publicly. They attempted to assassinate the Speaker of the House TWICE. Solomon Peña shot at people when he lost his election. How are we not discussing the 14th amendment and invoking the insurrection act declaring the ENTIRE GOP to be in open rebellion?
Completely unironically, Biden should use this newly granted power to Seal Team 6 the justices who made this decision and fill their seats immediately as illegally as possible, creating a 9-0 court that would stymy his opposition for half a century, and compel them to re-evaluate the decision upon his death. Then we’ll see if the conservative justices think it was a good idea to make this disastrous decision.
Bonus points if the court reverses this ruling and then turns himself in for the crimes he committed in those abuses. I very much dislike Biden because he's a bad person with bad ideas that has actively had a part in making this country worse for his entire political career, but that would instantly make him my favorite president.
Yeah kinda like the cocaine scandal that got covered up so quickly and never brought up again. People really don’t realize the abuse of power under Biden that gets hidden because the media is on his side. Wake up
@@DemonChanSama Except that means nothing when all acts the president does are official acts. As the video said, there is no definition for unofficial acts and a very broad definition for official acts. There is no other way of putting it than the fact that whichever party controls the supreme court can get a president in who is above all criminal law
@@ilost7489 That's irrelevant. My entire point is people are foaming at the mouth because of the supreme court ruling, not realizing that this isn't anything new, and hasn't been new for over 200 years. They think its a new thing, they think its because the supreme court is just taking trumps side, and all I'm saying is that isn't the case, they are just interpreting the law. The Supreme court cannot just magically change laws or establish new ones. Laws can be changed or amended only when Congress enacts, and the President signs, a later law. In other words, the supreme court cant just change the laws willy nilly, it has to go through the process first, then the president has to sign it. Meaning in order for the presidential immunity to be a new thing congress would have had to vote on it, then Biden would have had to sign it. You think ~~Biden~~ Kamala Harris wants to grant trump immunity?
I was taught all throughout my schooling that the three branches exist to balance out the power of the others, and to keep them in check. That was just violated horribly not once, but twice. Once for the ruling itself, and a second time because why are 6 people able to decide that the entire power structure of the government gets to just change? They were never in check, and they always had all of the power if they were able to make this ruling on a whim. I mean they've been abusing their power since always, but now its just stupid.
Honestly, this truly terrifies me. Because from the way this is described, the possibilities are beyond frightening. If a president cannot be prosecuted for anything he does that is part of his office, and part of his office is command of the military, then there is nothing that would preclude a president from finding highly sympathetic well-trained members of the military and setting them upon any of his opponents.... including the Supreme Court itself. He can send soldiers into the Supreme Court chambers, have those justices who most disagree with his beliefs killed in cold blood in public, issue pardons for those soldiers as they were acting for the office of the President, and then not suffer any prosecution. We have just had the highest court in the land legally validate the possibility and actual use of an Order 66. I'm terrified for the future.
It almost makes me wish that Biden would use this to win the election. But that's part of their disgusting calculus; they know the democrats won't abuse this. "If you call yourself a moderate, then meet me in the middle," says the fascist. You take a step towards him, and he takes a step back. "I said meet me in the middle," the fascist repeats.
your soldiers still has to follow lawfull orders,that should prevent something like that ,the us might not prosecute a president who did something like that but if it didnt he would be breaaking international law ,there are laws against crimes against your own people and deliberatly ruining democracy.
@@hannehanskov7560You must be joking. As the OP pointed out, the soldiers would be pardoned by the person who gave them the order, so yes they would have been breaking the law, but they would be effectively immune anyway. And international law is completely toothless, it all revolves around either cooperation from the country with the decisions of the international court or such a massive agreement from the other nations as to justify joint military actions against the bad actor. You think most of the countries of the UN would agree to invade the US, of all countries? Really?
And thank god someone actually got the point -- the point that every *legitimate* scholar has been trying to point out has unbalanced the co in co-equal. It is definitely a lot to take in, but that is the nature of the concern, where concern has been appropriately voiced.
Time for the states to take the homes of the SCOTUS Justices via eminent domain for public memorials for the defunct Constitution. The justification for site selections is obvious.
Will this ruling kill Trump's criminal trials? 📰 Get 40% off of Ground News: legaleagle.link/groundnews ⚖ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
Please also cover project 2025
A great lawyer? Nah bro I need a plane ticket. Get me tf outa here.
It is so much WORSE than simply Presidential immunity. It is extended to shielding the office from the investigation. All of the evidence the prosecutor gathered against Nixon would NOT be available according to this ruling. The president can quid-pro-quo accept monetary compensation for pardons and they can't even be investigated because that is an official act. It is stupefying. Even if the President doesn't do it - he can convince someone to do it on his behalf and then immediately pardon them. Perform criminal acts on a widespread scale to allow for the invocation of marshal law, suspension of elections and extending the term indefinitely ... it's all permissible.
its basically like time bound dictatorship , it makes separation of power a joke.
The seal tem 6 question out of no were was from the judge winking to Biden
My Con Law professor told my class on day one: “The Constitution is whatever 5 out of the 9 justices say it is.” I thought he was being dramatic, but I soon learned otherwise. Now look….
Time to pack the court then
Yeah, well all presidents have immunity but nobody ever talked about. You know how many civilians obama killed, why wasnt he charged for it
@@christianbech4426 send em to a blacksite. But that's what our enemies want. To undermine our security.
Well, yeah because that's exactly their job, to interpret the constitution, and they're the final arbiters so they can't be corrected by anyone other than themselves or their successors, barring an obvious constitutional amendment.
The constitution should, in fact, be whatever 7 out of the 13 justices agree. Four years ago. The fact that Biden refused to balance the courts is probably his greatest blunder.
President Nixon once said “if the president does it, it isn’t illegal.” And we collectively agreed that’s an insane precedent and now here we are 🫠
...and it only took less than 10 years.
This ruling would have ZERO impact on the charges against Nixon so just stop. LEARN TO READ
Would Watergate be illegal today?
You want a future for your kids and grandkids VOTE blue 💙 all the way 💙 🇺🇸
it's almost as if the whole "we're just going with a gentlemen's agreement not to stack the supreme Court with corrupt nitwits" has always been a bad idea
I find it very troublesome that some lawyers stood in front of the supreme court and basically said "we need the president to have legal immunity because otherwise he can't do his job" because that implies that the job is just, all crime. And apparently the majority of the justices didn't have a problem with that reasoning.
If the president's job is just crime, then maybe it needs to be a different job.
I think these lawyers are confusing the president with the Godfather.
But yeah, the implication that a president _has_ to commit criminal acts in order to be effective is staggering.
Only if you're a political hack dont recommend this channel
I do not for a second think trump thought this up on his own.
There’s a script, he’s just the ass following directions.
The president has to make war decisions, if the president didn’t have immunity, Obama would have to be charged for the children in the botched Syria attack too, think through the full scope.
This is what happens when the GOP is allowed to game the system.
The suggestion that the President has the powers of a King is actually understating it.
If we’re basing it on the monarchy up to 1776, the notion that the “King can do no wrong” was rejected in English Law in 1215 under the Magna Carta, and the UK had been a Constitutional Monarchy since the Bill of Rights 1689, which restricts the the Sovereign from ignoring laws outlined by parliament without explicit parliamentary exception. That means the Sovereign had NO RIGHT, by law, to order the death of anyone unless mandated by the British judiciary via laws passed by parliament - aka, a normal system of law. This too has since gone since the abolition of capital punishment in the UK
I know Americans on both political wings love to use King George III as the symbol of the big bad tyrant, but the truth is, he never had the level of power or lack of accountability that the modern office of President of the United States has. The only factor the King has over the President is that the position is hereditary.
@@sadaasdafa8635 Monarchy in Europe took different forms. The French Sun King is my example of absolute monarchy. He concentrated huge amounts of the state into the crown.
Others were often a wonky balance. Definitely not democracies but a balance between low and high nobility, the church, independent farmers, town mayors, city-leagues and other actors. And a royal household with different people.
American national myths, including American exceptionalism and self-righteousness, matter more than facts.
Charles I and James II show no king of England, Scotland, and Ireland, well before George III of the UK, could act with impunity.
@@bayousbambino427 this was enforced towards its own citizen yes, but the USA is a colony thus it has nor representation in Parliament, meaning the king in sense could act without impunity. I'm sure it was more complicated than this, but the basic underlying principle still stands. American myth, exceptionalism and self-righteousness do exist, but perhaps this isn't the best showcase of it?
@@million5666 What? The execution of Charles I and exile of James II was "enforced toward its own citizens"? That's nonsense.
You just gave away the evidence that George III could not act with impunity: Parliament. The supremacy of parliament was established in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The inability of the monarch to enter the House of Commons is the expression of that supremacy. Parliament controlled and controls the purse. Parliament passed and passes the laws of royal succession. Parliament could, can, and did pass acts reducing the monarch's powers. That's _exactly_ how we ended up with constitutional monarchy today. Parliament made the taxation laws in the 18th century as much as it does today. Parliament passed the laws outlining representation in parliament and who can vote.
George III did not rule, he reigned. Thus, "the tyrant King George" always has been a complete and utter myth, now woven into America's narrative of its own beginnings. Hence, it's alive today and affects Americans' ideas of kingship, even in the 21st century, as we can see throughout US media in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.
But, Americans also think England is a sovereign country, more than 300 years after it became part of the United Kingdom. So, how much can we really expect?
It’s not like they didn’t get away with it anyway trump didn’t actually do anything illegal maybe tax Real Estate fraud ? Who cares that was mostly BS cuz they could not get him on anything else
Look at what bill Clinton did nothing happened to him if anything his victim was targeted by congress and Hilary specifically
And if anyone should be in prison George bush should
What people don't seem to understand is this goes well beyond Trump and Biden. This is horrible for all of us.
oh yes, every election (if they exist in the future) we have to pray that the person elected is less corrupt and less of a tyrant than their opponent
@@angie-gz4ygIf Trump wins, we will have fake elections just like in Russia. The people did not continuously vote for Putin.
It was a bad ruling by the Supreme Court. But if a president did something crazy-bad, wouldn't congress still be able to impeach him?
Not really Supreme Court can always change the decision too much fear mongering. The Congress and Supreme Court still can impeach and for Supreme Court create new precedent. Nothing really new.
@@angie-gz4yg A proper president would maliciously comply. Send in Seal Team 6 to every treasonous court justice, select new ones and have them reverse the decision. There should be absolutely zero tolerance for this behavior. Examples need to be made.
“If the president isn’t immune to the law he might hesitate to perform his duties”
Well good! Isn’t that why we have laws? To curb unwanted behavior??
"If the parent isn't immune to child abuse laws they couldn't raise their kid."
"If the player isn't allowed to cheat he might not want to play"
It reminds me of that one American politician that talked about how the fact they killed an innocent puppy meant they can make tough decisions.
@@shonklebonkle324That one politician you're referring to would sing a hell of a different tune if someone who murders that same politician's son or daughter argues that if they aren't immune from facing criminal charges, they can't be a regular contributor to society.
@@shonklebonkle324 Kristi Noem.
That sentiment is used as a lazy excuse throughout government, such as for qualified immunity.
Obama killed a US citizien with a drone strike without a court. Why isnt he in jail for murder?
I find it hilarious that the same people who have been SCREAMING for years for a weaker Federal Government are now cheering this on.
It would be funnier if it weren't so sad
@@travis1240I used to feel sad for Trump supporters because they are getting duped by someone wouldn't think twice about throwing any one of them in front of a bus if it made him a dollar. (Kinda similar to how Homelander in the newest season of The Boys ordered Black Noir and The Deep and A-Train to kill those 3 fans of Himelander, despite them being his most loyal followers, all as a way to assert his dominance over Noir and Deep and A-Train, and also to use their corpses as a way to try to frame Starlight supporters for murdering Homelander supporters).
But.... Now that I have seen Trump supporters continue to defend him and double down on everything he does, I have come to realize that these people don't deserve pity because this is who they really are deep down in the core. They WANT this. So my sadness and pity has now turned into fury and intense disdain and judgment.
They weren't screaming because they actually wanted a smaller government. They just didn't like that the past government was headed towards a more "woke" route.
Now that it's headed down a more far right path they want the government to have their hands in everything.
They never believed in freedom for America. Only for themselves. If they see their neighbor losing rights then to them it means they're winning.
@@badwolf3618 “Deep thoughts with The Deep”
They only want it to be small government when they can't oppress others.
When they're in charge then suddenly they want government hands in everything.
Its insane that our highest courts are arguing over anyone should be immune to the law at any time for any reason
In Europe that's pretty much the norm, the argument being that being liable for political decisions would make a lame duck out of government, because unpopular but necessary steps could not be taken if the politician behind it has to fear prison or financial ruin. Obviously, if a politician here were to straight up murder someone, that immunity would be lifted by parliament.
@@CidVeldoril But democracy demands they obey the public no?
@@Lynn.-_-. Well yes, but actually no. Politicians here are quite good at the "we investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong" game.
It’s political; make sure u change ur affiliated party to whoever is in power in your area so u have a better chance to win in court 😂
@@CidVeldoril Well at least there is an investigation....
This cannot be further from what our founding fathers would’ve wanted. No matter what you want to say, they did not want a leader who was immune from the law.
Yes.
And this time, you don't have a new land to flee to to start anew.
that is not what the Trump-owned SCOTUS says. And what THEY say matters and not what you say.
@@n484l3iehugtilIf Trump wins we'll have a King Henry IX
Not even modern day Kings have immunity from prosecution. The English, nearly 400 years ago executed their monarch for excercising powers beyond his prerogative
Nixon once said, "No, I'm saying that when the President does it, it's not illegal!" That statement ruined him. Now it appears the Supreme Court has decided to officially agree with him.
Lol I wrote that just before seeing that clip.
Roger stone is dancing on the American founding fathers' graves as their occupants spin uncontrollably.
The majority judges of this Supreme Court are setting a slow-motion coup and the officials that were actually elected by the people are just letting it happen.
Apparently, Nixion was just ahead of his time.
Nixon committed a personal act not an official one
As someone who isnt even an american, this is terrifying. I would remind everyone that the Nazis did everything within the laws of germany thanks to loopholes like this.
This isn't even a loophole.
This IS (for now) *THE* law.
@@DarkonFullPowertrue, loophole implies unintended. The ones in Germany's constitution were unintended, this is pretty clearly intentional
This is definitely the enabling act lmao
We're aware. This is genuinely terrifying. We have A LOT of weapons...
The thing is Hitler had to use various forms of terrorism to get this kind of power.
SCOTUS just had to go “Okay!” And we sold our soul.
How did the Supreme Court even get this kind of power? Someone should have been able to block this kind of insanity. The need to have someone keeping them in check and term limits needs to be a thing.
Congress has this power over the supreme Court
Well, see, if we had a properly functioning Congress, then the Supreme Court wouldn’t feel as emboldened to get away with making these rulings because Congress would impeach them. BUT because we’re stuck with the Congress we have today, there would NEVER be enough votes to impeach any of these corrupt fuckers from their seats.
So here we are, in radical limbo just hoping to fall off a cliff and let it end.
The lack of terms was to ensure that they don’t have to bother pandering to a specific party or person to keep their position. Effectively putting them above politics, obviously personal bias does still exist as we see
@@RobGenson Adding on to this, from what I know of the process of procedures and powers of Congress and the Judiciary per the Constitution and past precedent, Congress does indeed have the power for this, but it also needs support from the majority of the states. Anything passed by Congress not a constitutional amendment relating to the supreme Court could be ruled unconstitutional and void by the Supreme Court. Not saying it will happen every time but it is one of many possible outcomes. There for a constitutional amendment would be needed to say this is now on the constitution, and this is the grey area I am not entirely certain though greatly intrigues me, is that I don't think a Constitutional amendment can be removed by anyone other then the passage of another constitutional amendment, per what happened with prohibition amendments. By that precedent I go forward and say it is likely that the supreme Court can't overrule anything that is constitutionally amended to the US Constitution. Though I suppose a possibility could arise where they could potentially here cases in relating to it before passage. I have not ever came across anything saying otherwise, though I'm no expert and am speaking of what I know from information I learned over time. That might help further answer your question... The constitution outlined the roles of the Supreme Court, primarily as an interpreter of the laws. Though things are vague there as well, at least for my understanding. Take what I say as an opinion not fact however, I only speak from what I understand and I may be missing some facts that could warrant a different response.
"When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty" -Thomas Jefferson
Good luck fighing the American army.
“Democracy rests on three boxes: the jury box, the ballot box, and the cartridge box” -Frederick Douglass
When peaceful reform is impossible, violence is inevitable.
I sometimes make a videogame reference in the form of Super Smash Bros, which doesn't give characters a "health meter" (hit points) but instead a "damage meter". So you never know how much you "have left" before a KO, or whether the next attack you take will _actually_ KO, you only know that it's more _likely_ to KO.
To apply that here: We don't know how many peaceful alternatives we have left before someone, somewhere, breaks that ice -- we only know that due to political climate change that ice is getting increasingly thinner.
@@friedrichjunztAs if many of them wouldn't oppose Trump, too.
After all, I remember a certain guy who keeps being honored despite his reasons for fighting the US Army, who was formerly a member of that army... now what was his name... Bob, right?
@@friedrichjunzt If memory serves, the American military is sworn to defend the Constitution against all foes, foreign and domestic. What makes you think they wouldn't side with democracy?
Fun fact the person who first pitched the idea of impeachment in US politics was Benjamin Franklin. And I'm paraphrasing here, he stated "we need a system of impeachment, because the traditional method of dealing with obnoxious leadership is often much more violent." It's almost like the founding fathers were aware that while human language and sentiment changes with time, human nature doesn't?
If a problem cannot be corrected with civility within the law, it will be corrected outside the law by any means necessary. That's the entire point of law. SCOTUS just abdicated their responsibility and in doing so have effectively kicked off a feedback loop of growing executive power.
The founding fathers were not anti-violence or violent reform. Just that it should happen only when the government had left no realistic avenue for change. Like this one!
@@Arrowatchim pretty sure they were against violent reform, judging it to only be a method of extreme last resort. Thats why there are release valves in the system.
@Arrowatch
Or when their slaves got uppity, or natives wanted their land back, or the Whiskey Rebellion, or when they liked the look of British farmland in Canada...
@@balinthehater8205 agreed. Jefferson's "tree of liberty" quote wasn't an endorsement of violence so much as his belief that violent rebellion is periodically inevitable.
1. Immune for official acts.
2. Unrestricted ability to pardon.
Damn, USA, you are BEGGING for a dictator!
That gun law starts making sense now, will this finally lead to the civil war they have been preparing for 🤔
I mean... not just begging. As of that ruling, they *have* a dictator. The current one just happens to have been elected.
The moment a republican gets into office somehow is the moment democracy permanenlty dies there, if nothing is done quickly.
Ever heard of impeachment?
@@KurisNiZai HE CAN'T BE IMPEACHED! That'd require evidence of the act for which an impeachment is being putforward....and it's likely an official presidential act...which is inadmissible.
That's why we have checks and balances but yes it is a problem
Its so weird as a Swedish citizen to see this. Our elected politicians are afraid of the public/voters. Not the other way around. Elected people should fear the voters, the ones giving you your job...
I doubt your politicians generate cults of personality in order to stay in power no matter what they do because the country has an unwavering trust of him to be fair.
Elected people have immunity so the government can’t conspire against a candidate to overrule the people’s choice.
Thats because sweden is democratic, the usa is a mixed autocracy...
should for what? how can you turn something you fear into the engine of your state?
As an American citizen I've been saying this for years
I love how [we found out] Roe v Wade was [going to be] overturned just before Mother's Day [even though the final ruling was in June] and now the president was ruled a king above the law just before Independence Day.
[Edits for technical correctness added in the square brackets.]
what's the next holiday?
They can think of something for Thanksgiving, surely! @@eljanrimsa5843
@@eljanrimsa5843first amendment removal (and establishing christianity as the only legal religion) on Christmas eve
@@eljanrimsa5843 Labor day. Oh boy. Probably about to legalize indentured servitude.
@@NavarroRefugee The children crave the mines
It is messed up that a bunch of lower courts ruled differently and unanimously but 6 people get to just completely change the law. 6 people that are completely unaccountable.
Not if Biden arrests them and throwe them in jail for corrupting the Constitution
Six people, who were put in office for life by the president, have overruled several lower courts, whose judges are elected for a limited term, and changed the law to make the president immune to basically ANY legal liability!
The system is so insanely rigged!
We're way past overdue on the chop chop, French-style. It's only going to get worse from here. I wish it wasn't so difficult to immigrate to another country... But also I don't want to wait until we're forced to run to escape and the borders become sealed off. "It Can't Happen Here" is such a bogus notion, American exceptionalism has been our self-inflicted kryptonite from day one.
It's as difficult to feel empathy for you as it is to not look at the current political landscape and consider this country a (very bad) joke and the laughing stock of the world.
@@LorenzooCesarit's literally the most powerful country in the world ever...cry harder
Nah don't worry. I'm sure chancellor Palpatine will use the emergency power for good
In order to ensure the security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first American Empire! For a safe and secure society!
Courts : It's an official act! Sorry guys.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
😂
He's Vader, not Palpatine.
@@RadMenace Eh, Trump is more like a Darth Jar Jar Binks :/
From "I think we're screwed" to
"We're officially screwed"
I could have sworn that at some point we collectively revolted against the idea of a king.
Tbh it was more about taxes they felt unjustified than a king in and of itself. It was less just "there is a king" and more "the king is treating us poorly and we have no other recourse." Not to say a lot of the Founding Fathers didn't have a very unique and mostly-gone-in-modern times view on government office as a duty to your countrymen and such. They definitely weren't fans of kings. Just that the big catalyst was a specific abuse that they likely would've rebelled against even if it came from an elected official.
Killjoy
@@Dabordilol
Noope it wasn’t over the king since the king didn’t have much power it was over representation that the England parliament had
Considering our Congress is just an oligarchy at this point, I'd take a king that over throws the system when he thinks he's upholding the ideals of old presidents. At least then the power that The People actually have might finally get to reform the government.
SCOTUS: "Presidents must has criminal immunity, or they could not possibly function as the President."
The Rest of Us: "If that's the case, how did we go 250 years without Presidential immunity, and the Presidency still function?"
They are lying through their teeth, entirely aware that we know it's all a lie. Mechanisms to hold the Supreme Court accountable are woefully lacking though, so I don't think they're that worried about being caught in a lie.
We haven't. Presidents have been effectively immune from prosecution for decades with the Supreme Court refusing to hear unconstitutional cases and precedent has been set through Qualified Immunity for representatives of the Judicial Branch, including judges and police.
Because we always acted as though they had it. That changed when Biden's people went after Trump. The left caused this.
“These days, illegality is a MUST otherwise we Republicans will lose power” ~ Republican SCOTUS lifetime unelected Political Party kings.
@@willfrankunsubscribed The last time we came close to a prosecution, a pardon ended it. The other time before that, the President died first. It hasn't come up much.
Everything we've been taught in school has been rendered null & void. We were always taught the Supreme Court was a group of unbiased judges that protect the land....Boy was that ever wrong.
and the last 2 judges selected by Trump shouldn't even have been pick, Trump made sure they favored him by selecting judges that in no other way would have been chosen
What's wild to me is -- Thomas especially has been on a knee-jerk rut, pulling things out of thin air to chastise. But he's as old as dirt. Why now object and rush to unset everything? He's answering questions nobody asked just to get gears moving in a different direction. I am no conspiracy nut but I think it's healthy to wonder why the same things he says are so wildly bad weren't bad the other millions of decades he's had a chance to say anything about it. May God have mercy on his soul.
@@vincentjohnflorio he's been caught accepting huge bribes for years, so they also made bribes legal now and he is looking to not get in trouble in any way
@@vincentjohnflorio There's more scrutiny than ever, and whenever he feels scrutiny, like Trump, he lashes wildly. Also KBJ is now sitting up there with him, and he don't like black people. The Uncle Ruckus of the Judiciary.
well all judges will have a moral bias, however, they are letting their political biases in way to much here. I don't think any judge 50 years ago would think the president should have immunity, but now look at it, they have a bias an are now saying a bunch of baloney to help out who they have a bias for.
As Russian, I've seen it happen in my country with my president. Please, don't fall to the same mistakes, fight for your rights and justice
July 4, 1776: No more kings!
July 1, 2024 : No, more kings!
Commas ruin lives
@@h8GWjust like grandma's fate at dinner, the last words she heard were "let's eat grandma!"
@@brandonstone2754 "duties 'granted' to him" cmon you are not a child. You extend the duty you extend the protection. You extend the definition of the duty you extend the protection. Devon even says this.
Then: Impeachment is how you do it.
Now: Impeachment is how you do it.
Here endeth the lesson.🙄
god, i love the comma
Imagine fighting tooth and nail to leave an empire run by a king with legal immunities just to form a country run by an elected President with the same immunities. That’s tough.
also Religion:
Trump litteraly wants to force children to do so
You've summarized George Orwell's "Animal Farm" !
You also forget that you sacrificed the life of several people to achieve this, the natives that are gone, the slaves that perished...all this was done in the name of freedom, sacrifices some insist were worth the cost...
That cost, it was mourned. Now you are turning on your own.
Ironically we would now have a less king-like leader then had we never revolted from the UK!
Idk if it was run per say then. The king had some power but it was a constitional monarchy so alot of the running of the empire would have been from the king
The idea that a man who serves a country for 4 years can appoint someone who oversees the laws of a country for 30-50 years is insane.
So only NOW do you voice a problem?
@@n484l3iehugtilHow do you know this is their first time bringing it up? How about the merits of the point?
@@n484l3iehugtil stop barking at the wrong people. One of the reasons we are in this and could get out of it is if we unite, especially since they WANT us to fight and comments like this only are detrimental to the discussion. You are achieving nothing with this kind of blame and you also have no idea what OP does or does not using just one sentence...
@@n484l3iehugtil It was less of a problem when the appointment system actually had checks and balances and wasn't just bypassed by the hyper-partisan politicians we have today...
@@vespuccini n484l3iehugtil has extensively stalked and followed mikelxanadu for over 20 years and have detailed notes of all of their opinions and public statements. I thought everyone knew about the rivalry between these two UA-cam commenters? Its astounding you can be here on the internet and not know this! /s
Long ago, I thought that the way the federal government was structured was a good check and balance against each branch. For the past several years, I've learned more and more how naive I was.
how could you have EVER thought that, man
The "2 party system" literally *completed destroyed* separation of powers and by extension "checks & balances" 💯👏
When I was a child playing with my friends, someone amongst our group would sometimes declare that they had "A shield that is immune to everything!", including myself on occasion. Each time it happened though the rest of the group would quickly get frustrated, stop playing, and collectively agree that nobody is allowed to be immune to everything. Even super heros have to have weaknesses. The fact that we could understand at six that absolute immunity was unfair but SCOTUS seems to have missed that is as amusing as it is disheartening.
So...the someone was Trump and everyone else was logical? Checks
It's not about fairness for these people comrade.
It's about the gathering and usage of power. Whether that be for personal usage of bullying others, or those too religious to recognize how utterly wrong this is.
There are people who have been handed everything and take it not for granted, but a right that they will pursue for themselves.
Then there are the outright sociopaths that just flat out don't care and being the type of people that should simply never be given power over others.
Also there's always that one kid who thinks that everyone else is just an idiot for not allowing them to play an unassailable part rather than recognizing the rights of their group.
The thing is THEY KNOW ITS UNFAIR AND THEY LIKE IT
@@wormwoodbecomedelphinus4131Its unfortunate many of the most competent and intelligent individuals in our country know well enough to not want to be involved in politics and deal with the headache. Especially these days when if youre trying to be fully moral youre fighting against the rest of the system. While many of the people most likely to seek these roles in government and accept their responsibilities, do so only for the powers that they can gain and exploit for themselves and their associates. They end up ignoring their duties in said roles, abusing their position while reaping the rewards, and make it harder for those trying to operate with good intent.
Clearly you have never used the “anti-anti-everything” trick on the playground 😂
So this is how democracy dies, with blasé apathy.
Not a Democracy, we are the states, the United States.
Well said
@SenorDesmadreany reason why you thinking that? Instead of just insulting you should provide your opinion
@SenorDesmadrethen can you tell me how this isn't the death of democracy in the US at least?
With fervent felonious fanaticism.
For nearly 250 years we haven’t needed to carve out this level of immunity for Presidents and they seemed to be able to function in their role. What changed?
Fox news and the GOP abandoning reason and civility for fascism.
Democrats deciding to prosecute the president is what changed. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, arguably the most unconstitutional (and therefore illegal) acts in presidential history. Who prosecuted him? No one.
I think for all the hubbub about this, the D's neglect one fact: Trump left. Sure, he whined about it, called it unfair, biased, etc. But in the end, no one had to remove him from office physically. Had he been a true dictator, we'd be living in the US of Trump right now, as we speak. He can't proclaim himself dictator unless he has full support of the military and law enforcement behind him. He doesn't have that. The military takes loyalty oaths to the US Constitution, not the President. If he orders or performs an unconstitutional act, officers have the right and duty to refuse to comply with the order.
And if he DOES have the full support of the military and law enforcement, then we're screwed regardless of what the Supreme Court says.
Trump
Human shit made it into the office in 2016
@@AshesOwOAshes Bush, Obama, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, the other Bush the whole to the presidential cabinets.
The only thing this does is reaffirm the status quo want change? Have the legislature perform that. The job of government is to govern. Roe Vs. Wade that's able to be legislated by the legislature named congress in the now before the election. Except nobody cares they're making too much money. Avarice corrodes one nation under fraud.
Don't be a knucklehead
It's easy to watch this from the UK and think "wow, america just keeps getting worse" and then carry on about my business as if it doesn't affect me. And then I remember how many american military bases there are on foreign soil around the world, and how much power (both soft and hard) the US exerts here and elsewhere beyond it's borders. This isn't just a blow for American democracy, it a blow for democracy worldwide. It's not just another step towards facism in the states, it affects us all.
Lol uk has way worse political crisis
Even future presidents should be afraid of this change.
Being able to take them to court was the *least* violent way to deal with presidential crimes.
This isn't a change.
Every president has always had this.
Its been that way for over 200 years. you can google it yourself Just type in Presidential immunity and its the second link.
ArtII.S3.5.1 Presidential Immunity to Suits and Official Conduct
If Trump gets in there will be no future Presidents.
There will be no future president after trump. Trump will be the last for the USA as we know it.
“Future presidents”? Oh, that’s adorable.
Sounds like Seal Team 6 might become the new Praetorian Guard...
“I have investigated myself and determined I have done nothing wrong” has been written into law.
hey, if the police can do it! 🤣😂🥲😭
Holy smokes... you people are so lost in your bubble it's ridiculous. I'm going to bookmark this thread specifically so I can comeback in 4 1/2 years and point out how poorly this video is going to age. 🤣🤣
@@Ranger1PresentsVirtualRealms That's a great idea.
@@corpsehandler5321 It *is* consistent with the doctrine of qualified immunity.
Which should be abolished.
@@Ranger1PresentsVirtualRealms I don't think there'll be an internet to come back to in 4 and a half years if a Trump presidency takes advantage of this in the extreme ways they could.
So putting aside the whole "SEAL Team 6" thing, because they might rightly disobey an unlawful order, it is now possible for a President to say "I hope some patriotic American does what needs to be done with respect to [Political Opponent], and when they do, I'm going to pardon them," and that President would enjoy total immunity for that and any resultant action. Correct?
The order would no longer be unlawful.
And the President can pardon SEAL Team 6 as well.
Many people presume that Trump would use this to his advantage. The interesting thing is, Biden is the president right now.
@@CraigThomler Well technically speaking, if a political rival's views or stance are seen as a threat by the POTUS at that time, then ordering a drone strike on said opponent then falls under official acts.
"Will no one rid me of this Thomas Beckett!?"
under the Nixon case, this would be legal unfortunately, since the Founders didn't want kings yet envision broad ranging pardon powers
Sooo, if my president doesn't have to follow the law... Why should we?
cause the President said so I guess, and he Got ALLL the military! Good luck Friend! wanna start a new Country together?
@@HasturLaVishnuYes
This is not poor judgement . It's not Judgment at all. It's corruption.
Word.
Blatantly obvious. They did this to protect Donald Trump and hope he gets elected so they can turn the country into a fascist Christian theocracy.
It's laying the groundwork for Project 2025.
The best SCOTUS money could buy!!!
PURPOSEFUL CORRUPTION!
Going by that logic:
1. The president sends the national guard to arrest and dispatch the current sitting SCOTUS justices.
2. The President can now install new military justices to the SCOTUS benches because
3. If any congressmen objects to these actions, the President can arrest and dispatch them with military power.
Immune, immune, immune.
All three branches are now under the executive branch.
But still keep the 25th Amendment . Unless your President has Dementia
people say its unfair that the president is above the law, but the law (constitution) has only been in place for just over 200 years. everyone who lived and died b4 that were also above the constitution since it didnt apply to them (not yet written). so it isnt far fetched to give president full imunity.
on the topic of your logic. sure, maybe he can do your 3 step model. but also remember, it can take 1 bullet to be unalived from 1 military person. president is never immune from death (no one is).
Sounds familiar, somewhere in Europe in 1933
Yeah, but those "conservative" judges know that a democratic president would never do that.
Indeed. My thought was "go arrest them all and then see what their opinion is....."
They'd all happily sit in jail and sit by watching the Prez deprive them of due process. Because they love such an energetic Executive. Madness.
Giving the President almost monarchical levels of power on Independence Day has to be one of the most ironic things America has ever done.
Plenty of us in the US agree
If they could have announced it on the 4th of July I'm pretty sure they would have.
This does feel very much like a middle finger to the people.
monarchs don't have immunity, at all.
@@Scribe-cd5xb even in Spain, where the King barely has power, is inmune
Yeah no I'm fleeing
No you arent
not if we build THE WALL >:D
Cry and run, you deserve nothing.
@@PRubin-rh4sr wowzers bro you really got me through a comment section 🤯
@@cronoslamar4061 ur kinda right. It's too expensive :(
They really said: "The president shouldn't be afraid of or hesitate to commit crimes." How can anyone think this could possibly be a good idea?! 🤦
Well see there is a lot of lead paint on the windows.....
This is a bad dream. I want to wake up now.
Because they are just as corrupt as he is. He put them there for this reason. They don't give any fcks about anything else, their power resides with him, so they will give him unlimited power, and he will return the favor.
Methinks the president SHOULD hesitate.
Does the ruling apply to what POTUS does *himself only*?
E.g. POTUS cannot be prosecuted for ordering an assassination, but whoever carries it out CAN be prosecuted?
As a citizen of an ex totalitarian country: I’m absolutely terrified. American folks, demand a change while you still have the rights to do so. I’m dumbfounded that apparently no one has learned from our mistakes. Open a history book and look at what we had to endure and just how hard it was to fight for our freedom: we paid for it in blood. And if you are so fond of freedom, don’t let the same thing happen to you
Tell that to our current president. Without it being illegal, Biden now has the authority to keep chump off the ballot.
This is terrifying and should terrify the world... No other dictator or totalitarian ruler has had a Military of the US's magnitude behind them. A Military that has bases all over the world. What is to stop our president from annexing whatever he wants?
There are massive structural problems with large scale protests in the United States, starting with the fact that we are a huge nation, physically separated from each other. Vast rural sections of this country have enormous political power, enough that Donald Trump may win after losing the popular vote by tens of millions of votes.
Furthermore, in the urban centers which are largely democratic and pro-democracy, Pro-Diversity, and pro Liberty, the police forces are largely made up of fascists from the suburban outskirts, making large-scale protest in the city both dangerous and rather pointless. Telling everyone who agrees with you that you are mad doesn't change anything.
A sizeable fraction of Americans want nothing more than the freedom of giving their freedom away.
I’m Canadian, and I’m worried.
We need two new Constitutional Ammendments:
No member or officer of the government either elected or appointed is immune from criminal prosecution.
Supreme Court members shall serve a term no longer than 10 years.
A potential solution. Let’s focus the conversation on this. Complaining about a disaster doesn’t make it go away.
No, we need an entirely new Constitution.
@hewdelfewijfe "good-faith execution of their duties" is a dangerous wording, as it puts the definition of "good faith" into the hands of the courts which leaves us where we are now.
@@isaacwoodard2151 - An Amendment to the Constitution is never the solution to anything since the ability to pass an Amendment that is split politically is impossible.
@@TheEnterthedreaming No thank you.
Lol America will not survive the next 4 years. Goodbye the world, we decided that because eggs were a little expensive we had to give one of the most reprehensible men in the world an all day free pass to become practically a diety.
well, at least the dem*cracy is finally hindered after so long, right?
Woo!!! Yeah!!!! I hope to God that we get the Trump you guys fantasize about!
This is how democracy dies: not with a bang, but a whimper. It's not immediate, it's slow. It's not grand, it's insidious. No matter your party or platform, if you are American and in fact, if you live in ANY democratic country, what has been done with this ruling is a death rattle of democracy and the entire basis in which America as a nation was formed. This removes the KEY principals the founders of this country waged a revolution upon, and built our constitution around: that all men are created equal, and no one individual is above criminal law.
This is, at its core, a betrayal of everything this country has ever represented. And if you think this is a win for your party, you are a sad, naive fool. It opens the door for any nefarious opportunist to convert this country into an autocratic dictatorship, regardless of their own ideological platform.
This is how many tyrannical dictatorships began, including those that remain our enemies today, such as russia, north Korea, and even Saddam's regime we spent 15 years fighting to dismantle.
This opens the door to the wolves, and leaves no legal defense for the people.
I do not tend to use the slippery slope fallacy, but in this rare and deeply damaging case, this is the DEFINITION of a slippery slope. This is NOT the end of this continued push to dismantle the checks and balances that preserve our democracy, and unfortunately, I fear this country will only come to fully realize the gravity of these series of horrifying mistakes as the betrayal they are when it is far, far too late.
Remember this: Germany did not become the Nazi empire it was overnight. It did not happen through one act alone. It was a gradual process of eroding systems put in place to ensure a democratic process, a gradual adoption of extremist ideology that redicalized and incensed just enough of the wider populace to overthrow that democracy, and as each gear shifted in the wrong direction, Germany slipped into a catastrophic Nazification that led to the worst War the world has ever known, more death than a human brain is capable of comprehending, and decades of fallout we STILL haven't recovered from.
What this is, is an open door to a dangerous void in which power of the people is stolen away, and we are ruled by kings who hide behind a false veil of authority and justice. What is "just" becomes what is perceived as just by a single individual or minority group, and the voice of our people is silenced.
I cannot celebrate Independence Day in good faith because our democracy is on life support and while many radicalized Americans see this as a victory for *their* party, the truth is, this is a loss for every American, whether they are aware of this or not. I would be just as disturbed by this ruling no matter what party or platform pushed for it because this is the death of a country for the people, and there is no longer any sense of accountability for a terrorist leading this country into its own brand of Nazification.
As it's been said before, you either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. This is what happens when unstoppable power meets no resistance, and in the end, it will drag us all down with it.
Today, I mourn the dying gasp of America, and this long night gas grown ever darker. My other home, Ukraine, is already fighting for survival against one tyrant hellbent on destroying the core principals of democracy and genociding my cultural roots. How, my other home is succumbing to the insidious influence of this enemy, and Putin is sure to celebrate this SC ruling as a great victory.
I pray Americans never come to know what true authoritarianism and oppression is, but each day, my hope that they will remain privileged enough to live in ignorance and stupidly support Russia because they do not know what Russia truly is.... that hope is dying.
That being said, be it in Ukraine or America, I will NEVER submit to authoritarian rule, I will ALWAYS fight for democracy, and I will NEVER be silenced, even if it kills me. I will scream at the top of my lungs for all my brothers and sisters who were silenced, and I will never give up hope that the echoes of their ghosts and our fury will ring true through the ages until a new Beacon is lit and carried by those who will topple the very regime we fight so valiantly to prevent from coming to fruition.
Today, I weep, but tomorrow, I plan.
So eloquently spoken. It is so sad that our nation has fallen so far. I can't even say we should use the very powers that SCOTUS has declared against them, because then we are no better than them. They have created a situation in which it doesn't matter who wins: all of America will lose, in the long run. We will become the very monsters against whom we once stood alongside the rest of the world to lay low. And we have fallen for the dangerous rhetoric of an unhinged narcissist who simply wishes to see the world burn because it ridiculed him in public.
that was the stupidest thing you ever could have wasted your time cooking up, Mr. Armchair Political Science major.
Maybe that plan should include getting citizenship in Australia. Thanks to this decision, it's not a matter of if USA will become an autocracy, but when. There's nothing you can do to change this.
Even if Trump doesn't get elected next time around, the very next time a shameless psychopath like Nixon or Trump or Putin or Hussein get elected, they now can just choose to become dictator for life. And like all shameless psychopaths, they will.
@@PixelstarWASD Stfu I thought it was cool
@@Marco-Sanchezpixelstar is a simpleton. Just mark and avoid because you will only lose brain cells if you engage.
I hate to be that guy, but this is like Star Wars when they ask "but sir, is this legal?" And Palpatine responds "I will make it legal".
It may be protecting them from "official acts", but what the hell is an official act? And what stops a president from making something an official act?
May The Force be with you 🎉
@@emanym and also with you 🙌
Also "this is how democracy dies" is just ringing in my head.
Like assassinations of american citizens in countries were not at war with for who they are related too?
Thanks Obama
When did that happen i agree but no one said that
I have a question. As a soldier in the military, we’ve been taught that we can disobey an order if it is deemed immoral or illegal. So what happens when the president tells a grunt to fire a live round at a civilian during a protest? Are they legally obligated to follow that order? If they don’t follow that order can they be subjected to a court martial?
edit: i want to be clear and say i have a brain in between my ears and i’ve already been counseled multiple times for disrespecting my toxic leadership and i’m still standing, i asked this question to start a convo. keep it cordial 🙌
They probably could be subject to a court martial. But like any court case if could be dismissed if you felt like you had a legit reason to Dow shot you did.
When immorality is the law, to disobey is your duty.
Following an order is not the same as following the law. The law says “don’t shoot”, so follow it.
It means that our new last line of defense is an 18yo with a weapon.
A soldier can and should refuse to obey an unlawful order. If they follow that unlawful order, they can be criminally prosecuted. But the President could pardon them for that crime, and that use of the pardon power could never be used to later convict the (current or former) President of any crime.
If the soldier follows the law, they could be court martialed. A good military court wouldn’t do that of course, but the President could also remove JAG officers from the chain of command until he got personnel who would be willing to do what he wanted. And he couldn’t be prosecuted for any such actions, and those new cronies could trust that the President could pardon them from any criminal liability.
So yes, a soldier can refuse to go along with the criminal schemes of a President, but the deck is stacked against them in terms of whether the rest of the military and the justice system will adequately protect them for having done so. There is no deterrent for them breaking the law, so we just have to pray that our soldiers take their oaths seriously.
honestly people need to understand, this isn't even about Trump, its in general. This is about any potential presidential leader in the future that could have malicious intent and utilize this. What's worse is how much a president in the past has done that know one knows about, just what we know that some got caught for.. and yet here we are
Eh, the SC can just overturn their decision when the President is someone they dont like.
From a foreigner this is literally the most ass backwards thing I have ever heard. The leader of a country, arguably the person with the greatest responsibility of any person in that nation, by virtue of their position and authority, ought be held to the highest legal and ethical standards period.
I am an army officer. My responsibilities and authority and power are exponentially greater than those people who fall under my command or are of a lower rank than I am. As such my conduct, my interactions with law enforcement and the justice system need to be unimpeachable because I hold people's lives and well-being in my hands.
The most junior of my subordinates, along with the rest of the general populace are subject to the laws of the land and possible consequences of breaking those laws as laid out within our criminal justice system. The leader of a country ought be held to a higher standard than what we ask of our most junior members of the military and the rest of the citizenry.
Holding the belief that I can do whatever I want because I am in charge is the antithesis of leadership. Leadership at it's core is putting others' needs ahead of your own because you have chosen to be the person with the authority to effect sometimes devastating policies on people's lives. Anyone who doesn't understand this does not understand the fundamental principles of leadership. Leadership is a privilege, and if isn't approached as such it isn't leadership...it is a dicatatorship.
Thanks for sharing!
Yes and that's why when he was impeached (twice) he should have been removed from office and never seen again.
Very well put. If only the people in government here understood the sanctity of leadership the same way that you do.
Sir or ma'am, you should be president.
Amen. This has been the attitude I have brought with me throughout my career in management, and I've always respected and felt respected by those under my care. I also never saw myself as 'above' them simply because I had power they did not. I was there in a support role; they are the ones doing the work, I am just there to keep things running smoothly, keep everyone safe, and to handle issues if they arise.
Leaders are support roles. If something cannot function without a leader, to any capacity, then it is non-functional and your leader is just doing the work instead of leading.
I think it's impossible to spell out how bad this is. Virtually every single thing a president does now can be made effectively legal by saying "as a presidential act" before they do whatever they want.
Yup. As long as it's on that beautiful sheet of paper that says "From the Office of the President of the United States" you're a-ok. Gotta love it
It'll be so fun to see people from 10'ish years on the future trying to say that this was a conspiration or something when someone they dont like abuse it...
Presidents have always ran on that presumption and not a single president has ever been held accountable for despicable actions during their term. While I don't like the ruling, literally nothing is going to change.
@@TheDarkLasombra Everything is going to change. This is like saying you're choosing to drive without a seatbelt because you've never crashed.
Entirely legal hypothetical: Biden Seal-Team-6-es the 6 majority conservative justices, allowing the 3 remaining supreme court justices to reverse the decision when he's criminally prosecuted. Would be an incredible legacy to leave. (He could also legally Seal-team-6 the currently-running former 45th president of the US, just to completely reset the election slate.)
"If a president is afraid of breaking the law, he can't do his job." Is one hell of an argument.
I know right... Like yeah sure Trump is bold enough to break the law basically all the time, so a criminal is the best to be president? Like.. what? Lol. Their mental gymnastics knows no bounds.
The punchline is that the president takes an oath to uphold the law. I don't recognize this country anymore.
Especially when that is what every president up until now has done, apparently none of them were able to do their job and we're only now getting around to changing it? Unlikely.
It's one hell of a confession
The argument of a child.
A President SHOULD hesitate when they are about to do something that they are afraid they might be prosecuted for later! In what world wpuld ANYONE think otherwise, let alone the supreme court justices!!?!? This is difficult to believe this is real.
Bogus cases don't help. Witness tampering charges do not fit the J6 committee obstruction accusation and even Jack Smith failed to notice.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: "I agree with the majority that §1512(c)(2) does not reach "all forms of obstructive conduct"" and is, instead, "limited by the preceding list of criminal violations" in §1512(c)(1)."
because the supreme court was either bribed, or their IN on it
no sane person truly thinks like that without malicious intent
This absolutely scares me. Seriously. I'm a combat veteran and served in the US Army and fought for this country and now I'm looking to find a way to move out of it and never look back, because if this is the reality we're about to completely destroy this country in a way you can't possibly imagine. Only the worst of the worst will run for president because it's a get out of jail free card and right to do criminal activity without consequence.
And here we tried to remove a president for getting head in the oval office. Now we're going to sanction and criminalize the office of the president? You have to understand and believe that the president is a human and often times driven by political motivation. If we put someone like Trump into that position with this protection in place there is absolutely nothing stopping him from doing everything he wants as a complete dictator. And yes, he would.
I agree! It would be tragic if your service was in vain. I, too, fear it might be time to get out. It's not going to be easy, but I'm going to be looking. Good luck, friend. 💙
I'm also extremely shocked that people of this country are willing to vote in a convicted felon. I may not agree with how the conviction went, but if I was convicted I wouldn't be able to argue the how or the judgement and then join the state troopers or the military, but I could apparently run for president? Have we completely forgotten what the difference is between right and wrong?
Agree my army brother. Agree.
@@bulwulffcristole3235he is convicted of fraud. Essentially abuse of power. People want to the man with a list of abuses of power and now criminal conviction of such acts, more power. Insane.
Sadly there is no place far enough away.
The founding fathers did NOT fight for independence for this ruling to be passed
The founding fathers died long ago. Their legacy is whatever their descendants want it to be.
@@jimsouthlondon7061💀💀
@@jimsouthlondon7061This is the problem, partisan BS bots in all the comments. Democrats and Republicans should both be disgusted by the dismantling of democracy and all anyone can do is yell "Ha, my team is winning" as it all burns around them.
@@jimsouthlondon7061 Yea i'm more afraid of a dementia patient than an actual kiddie fiddler.
@@jimsouthlondon7061maybe you do if that's the conclusion you draw
Welp. I just have one thing to say to all those people who say that the Second Amendment is for dealing with tyrants: ANY TIME NOW WOULD BE GREAT.
He's not a tyrant to all of them. He's their leader. Good luck with your country!
This!
...I suggest people get prepared in all manner of ways, including organizing, and setting up mutual aid networks.
He’s not even the president right now. You’re advocating for the murder of a civilian by the government.
You first. Seriously, don't ask someone else to risk their life and sacrifice their own freedom to save you when you aren't willing to do the same yourself.
The supreme justices system feels so archaic for some reason.
Like "okay, here are some old farts that the people didn't choose and they get to decide basically everything and they won't leave once put into place because getting rid of them is quasi-impossible"
Exactly….
From Europe: The US never had a French Revoloution, because for that you need a king. Finally you can repeat what you missed out on!
Well, technically they did when they were British. Way way back.
@@c0mpu73rguy No. The US fought for independence, they didn't try to take down the English Monarchy.
@@doctornick17 But they used to have a king.
@@c0mpu73rguya king that was never deposed
Holy shit.
As an Eastern European, I can say with absolute certainty this is the type of stuff you get right before becoming the next Russia. Please, people of the US, don't let your country fall to the corrupt, the zealous, and the numb. The world is in your hands, voters.
It all comes down to November. We'll try our best. If not, I'm sorry for your country and mine.
Oh half the nation actually DO want to become Russia, without knowing what it actually is like. And when US BECOMES like Russia, they will realize their mistake too late. And ALL the world will suffer for it.
100% agreed. This is now an existential struggle.
We're trying our best
We are trying, my brother. Its just that those who refuse to use logic and reason outnumber us.
Imagine showing this court ruling to a founding father.
Washington reloading his musket: "Here we f*cking go again!"
@TriIIiianbro is not him 😭
To quote a Jacobin article by Seth Ackerman:
It stands to reason that a document drafted by a coterie of gilded gentry, openly contemptuous of “democracy” and panicked by what they saw as the mob rule of the 1780s, would seek to constrict popular sovereignty to the point of strangulation.
Thus, brilliantly and subtly, the system they built rendered it virtually impossible for the electorate to obtain a concerted change in national policy by a collective act of political will. The Senate is an undemocratic monstrosity in which 84 percent of the population can be outvoted by the 16 percent living in the smallest states. The passage of legislation requires the simultaneous assent of three separate entities - the presidency, House, and Senate - that voters are purposely denied the opportunity to choose at one time, with two-thirds of the Senate membership left in place after each election. The illogical electoral college gears the whole combat of presidential elections around a few, almost randomly determined, swing states that happen to contain evenly balanced numbers of Democrats and Republicans. And the entire system is frozen in amber by an amendment process of almost comical complexity. Whereas France can change its constitution anytime with a three-fifths vote of its Congress and Britain could recently mandate a referendum on instant runoff voting by a simple parliamentary majority, an amendment to the US Constitution requires the consent of no less than thirty-nine different legislatures comprising roughly seventy-eight separately elected chambers.
@TriIIiianbro is delusional
@@pneumon6990what is he delusional about?
It's really funny to think the majority quote Federalist 70 in the decision, but Federalist 69 says that "The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law." Both 69 and 70 were written by Hamilton, and it's safe to say that "absolute immunity" does not constitute the intended message. There's also the fact that the Federalist papers aren't really law either and just opinion, but who's counting.
Correct, and you're in defense of Trump." Impeached, tried, and, upon conviction ... would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law."
Please find a better source of news, UA-cam channel: Robert Gouveia Esq.
I don’t think I’ve EVER seen one of Devin’s videos before where he’s so obviously so been angry, scared and shocked. As he should be. What happened this week is utterly terrifying, and I say that as someone who isn’t in the US but in Europe. This judgement affects the entire world, not just America.
thought so as well, usually he tries to be far more neutral in reporting this stuff. For him to unashamedly share his opinions on this shows the gravity of what just happened
Changing from the dollar would change a great deal and sends a powerful message.
@@brodriguez11000 from the dollar??? what?
Pretty sure I saw this slip down the rabbit hole in a movie once... Oh yeah, Revenge of the Sith. 'this is how democracy dies, to thunderous applause'.
Different house, same outcome. 🤦🏻♂️
If you watch his video coming out right after Jan 6 2020 you'll see him more or less as angry as in this one.
I find the gaslighting in the ruling to be extra infuriating. Roberts says that Presidents are not above the law, and then creates a ruling that puts Presidents above the law. At least Taney was honest and upfront about the racism that underlay his ruling instead of pretending that he was making it in the interest of liberty and justice for all.
Agreed.. It reads like something out of Orwell, with big reasoned sounding language to obfuscate the utter dystopian tragedy of this. It's alarming how disingenuous. How much they prioritize presidents rights over the peoples rights. How much independence of Executive over checks and balances. All knowingly to take Congress out of the governing equation as the ultimate goal. For 6 individual people to be able to change the structure of government like this is mind boggling.
Yes, the double-talk is roughly at the level of 1984 newspeak. The main aim seems to me to create so much confusion that these justices and Trump can have things any way they choose.
You didnt read the rulling ? The president is subject to the constitution, his power comes from the constitution. Is it written in the constitution that he can do everything ? No! So such an action is purely and simply impossible. Do you know what we call a constitutional crisis? President CANT do what the constitution doenst give him ! The Constitution is more powerfull then him, and the consitution is to protect the US.
This was ruling with one, and only one, purpose. To elect Donald Trump.
This is the same court that affirmed Korematsu in like 2018 while claiming they hadn't just affirmed Korematsu. But, you know, the decision text did in fact affirm Korematsu.
How does this not make the court illegitimate? One of our founding principles was no one person is above the law. It’s a sickening overreach
Judges have immunity from *all* charges while doing their job, and have for the entire existence of this nation. Crazy how Devon just blatantly forgot to mention that.
Unless he’s a president with Dementia
There's talk of articles of impeachment for those justices when Congress re-convenes. And a constitutional amendment to nullify the decision.
@@ASDeckard no, they very much do not.
@@Swordsman1425 I wish, but unlikely
I'd also like to point out that under this ruling, one of the President's official powers/duties is to enforce the law, which means that he is immune in all matters of law enforcement more or less.
Mass surveillance of any kind? Fine.
Declare someone guilty of a crime without a trial? Immune.
Extract false confessions through torture? He can't be punished.
Execute every low level drug offender and illegal immigrant in the country? That's fine.
Collectively punishing an innocent community for the crimes of a single resident? Nothing to stop him.
Sterilize inmates so that even after release they can never have children? He can do that.
Extend any criminal's sentence to life and then sell them as slave labour to another country? That's technically enforcing the law so he's immune.
Basically, from my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this ruling essentially allows the president to do anything they want to any person who has been convicted or is even suspected to have committed any sort of crime, and that is as close to the definition of tyranny as I could possibly imagine. This truly is the worst case scenario, giving unfathomable political and legal power to one of the most problematic, selfish and disgusting people on the face of the planet.
If hell really exists, I have no doubt they have a very special place reserved for Trump, his judges and every single one of the parasitic elites who put us and our world into this mess.
Scotus is in direct violation of their one MAIN DUTY to uphold the constitution. They should be found in direct violation of their contract and removed from office based on this disconnect
Hmm. I think you should ask the SCOTUS about that
@@I-did-September-11thNo worries, they self investigated and found no problems! 👌
They could if they actually cared or wanted to. In my opinion both sides are definitely ok with this. I feel like both sides have been radicalized.
Let’s kick Biden out of office because one of his executive orders to forgive student loan debt overstepped the boundaries of his office according to the court. Also presidents can be removed without the courts we’re talking about legal liability. Don’t forget that legal liability also has nothing to do with whether an act itself is allowed and constitutional.
@I-did-September-11th Yes, you is that any lawyer worth their salt?That knows , the constitutional law should be speaking up against this and perhaps joining together in order to Bring this to the attention of the courts.
Let's go shouldn't have much say in it because an An employee That violence company rules does not get a choice in the matter of whether they are fired or not
6 justices lied when they testified that no one is above the law. 6 justices shat on the grave of every soldier who died defending our freedom.
They lied under oath. They took bribes. One is a rapist. One is a cult member. One took more than $4 million from a billionaire and failed to disclose these gifts.
There are more than enough reasons to depose the Supreme Court.
You do realize that without presidential immunity, the presidents at the time those soldiers died could be charged with 1st degree murder.
@@kdog2646 …Are you people being paid to be insane, or, like, what?
@@cameronellis7210Same goes for you.
@@gramioerie_xi133 are you being paid to be insane?
Listening to this was absolutely horrifying. I have family in the US and would like to live there myself one day, so it is especially scary for me as a German to essentially watch the Supreme Court set up an unimpeachable “Führer” position.
German living in Ohio here. This has strong Third Reich vibes.... Red Hats are the new armbands....
That's funny, cuz I'm sitting here wishing I could move to Germany, and claim ancestry to do so, but can't because of the Kaiser, basically. Lol
Technically, it is the spinelessness of U.S. Senators that makes the Presidency unimpeachable, because every vote on conviction in the Senate divides almost on party lines, preventing even the remote possibility of getting 2/3rds consent, not even when those members themselves were witnesses to Trump trying to overthrow them personally.
Stay in Germany it is safer there.
alright but like what is the crime
george washington would lose his shit if he saw what's happening today
The judicial branch just failed to check the executive branch.
trias politica is no more. Your country is now an unofficial kingdom.
no, they didnt fail to check them
They chose not to. this isn't incompetence, this is malice
It bent over and “here, Trump!”
There is a difference between failing, and actively choosing not to check his power.
No they got on their knees.
The Supreme Court literally said “We don’t want to make him responsible for anything, because he might have to think before he acts.”
I like too remind people Article 2 says *Take Care* to faithfully enforce the laws.
So yeah, the ruling makes no sense.
The duty requires them to stop and think about their actions!
This supreme court is a sickening right-wing mess. Biden NEEDS to win again and do something about them.
"He might have to think 'of himself before he acts."
But essentially ONLY for Trump and other presidents they support. They left it open so that they can say NO to anything Biden does and make it criminal but make anything Trump does fully legal. The SC is no longer a court of law, it is a political priesthood with full political commitment to one party law and stare decisis be damned.
5 to 4 Majority is insane. With Juries you need all 12 to agree, so why, in the highest court, do they not need all 9 to agree?
Good point
its 6 to 3 but yeah
Because a jury must be impartial and unbiased above all else. SC judges are appointed to serve the constitution first, but they are picked by the president to give an edge to a particular party so many rulings fall along predictable partisan lines.
They also are all previously lawyers, so there is a presumption that these are educated legal minds with a large amount of previous experience serving as a lawyer or judge and thus know how to navigate these tricky issues. However that argument went out the window when actual congressional time was dedicated to understand what one of the then candidates named 'boofing'.
That would make our country so much stabler. It would very good.
He is not campaigning to be 47th "president" of the US, he's campaigning to be the 1st "God emperor king" of the US.
"The Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire"
A.K.A. dictator. It's easier to spell.
Try thinking for yourself instead of just parroting CNN and 'the view'.
@@notpoliticallycorrect4774 Idk what either of those are. Your username, lack of content, and join date make me suspect you're a bot though. Perhaps it's you who should think for yourself instead of assuming that people who think differently just blindly follow shows they watch
Nothing Trump did is out of ordinary for a president. You may take that to mean "he's not that bad". What I actually mean is that "every president is a war criminal, and Trump isn't very remarkable in that".
..... this is definitely the bad timeline.
I think it’s worse.
no it's great
I have to remind myself that the cold war did not lead to nuclear annihilation. This is the second worst timeline at most
We gotta wait until 2077 for that one@@Ramschat
@@Ramschat The more I see, the less I find a _Fallout_ timeline to be the _bad_ one...
Does anyone else remember when Mitch McConnell voted against impeaching Trump for Jan 6 despite saying he was obviously guilty but that the legal system was in place to prosecute him? Me neither.
Mitch McConnell ran the most successful coup d'etat in American history by filibustering Obama appointees then granting the appointments of Felon Trump. It contributed to this disaster.
Ah good ol' Mitch. Mr. "We shouldn't impeach him because these are clearly criminal acts" one day, then Mr. "You can't indict without an impeachment conviction" the next.
Interesting how the justices that Mitch put in power disagree with that. Big oof
J6 gas was $1.68 who was guilty ? no one overthrew the installed moronic government and no one was charged. watch the video tapes
Well it was. And Mitch McConnell isn't a supreme court justice. So nothing about that was hypocritical (wrong of him, because you should also impeach him as well, but not hypocritical). He didn't even know about this case at the time, because it didn't exist, so he couldn't have had a secret conversation about this ruling before saying that.
If the president has immunity, what the hell does “high crimes” for impeachment even refer to?
Nothing lmao
They would dishonestly argue that its for unofficial acts
I think , but I am unsure that they would argue that impeachment is a extra-legal way of stripping office from officers, potentially stripping immunity as well, but probably not.
Well that’s separate from criminal charges. Impeachment means that congress has voted to hold a trial to remove the president from office. Not send them to jail. That is still within their power.
Things that aren't official acts and don't get immunity. I.e. Drunk driving isn't an official act.
i keep trying to explain to people that theres nothing stopping him and they are like "yes there is? we have rights and.." no we dont. thats the problem
The USA was founded on the principle that absolute monarchs were terrible for a nation and the rule of law should be absolute. How is it possible that the supreme court can ignore this foundational principle?
Because that’s exactly what they want.
Fascism and nationalism. Trump uses patriotism (synonymous with nationalism) a lot like Hitler used nationalism.
Corruption. There is no longer a separation between the branches of government, because the President appoints the justices instead of them being elected officials.
'cause they want a monarchy. they didn't grow up in one and don't realize how bad it is.
they have some delusional romanticized idea of the past.
the supreme court has proven they are not worthy to serve.
Ah the sweet irony right?
It was never about freedom or sovereignty of the nation.
It's about hogging power. The reign didn't end, just changed management.
“With fear for our democracy, I dissent” was horrifying to read and makes me fearful for the future of this country
Sotomayor is a political hack writing hysterically to try to save her party in the upcoming election.
It's one of those dissents where you know you're watching something that will go down as a dark chapter of history and can't do anything but hope it'll be undone in the future. Guess it makes sense she also quoted from Korematsu, which is another one of those cases...
So why did you lie about Biden’s dementia ?
Where did these idiots get the idea we wanted the President to be fearless?? A true leader acts in spite of fear. Fear is an evolutionary advantage. It causes us to weigh pros and cons. When cons are perceived to be absent (but only for the person making this choice) we are likely to choose less wisely for the good of all the people. What a mess!!!
When did conservatives and Republicans ever care about precedent, as well as the rule of law the constitution they just want to impose their deranged worldview on everyone else
🇺🇸
Get me Jack Bower ASAP
American culture has historically gravitated towards things that looks cool over something that is actually useful. It's why our mascot is a scavenger, and the modes of transport we put on a pedestal are often the most costly. It's also why the animal a concerning number of people identify with is the one that either lays on its ass all day while its wife does all the work, or goes out of its way to steal food from much weaker predators.
@@catwrangler7907 I need a hack saw!❤️
Did the supreme court forget the president is a public servant?
Motive is the most important evidence "I assassinated my political rival because he was selling nukes to russia" and "I assassinated my political rival because he called me a meany poop head" now carry the exact same weight in court
Your delusions and legal eagles lack of reading comprehention for consistutional matters is why there will be no middle lmao
Any proof of nuke sales?
At the end of the day they still murdered someone.
@@kawkasaurous there is no middle to be had, either you're completely against all aspects of conservatism or you are wrong.
@@kawkasaurous You can't even spell comprehension right. Or constitutional. "Your delusions and legal eagles lack of reading comprehention for consistutional matters is why there will be no middle lmao"
Objection!
The presumption that you "will see me in court" implies that there will be a court which we are allowed to participate in.
Nice Phoenix Wright reference.
It makes me happy that so many people see this and are terrified, that not everyone is happy about what is happening. It makes me feel less alone
this comes out with the overturning of the bump stock law. They're literally prepping to take the Capitol and everyone is just *stuck watching*
Mb I misread that.
I thought you were saying the opposite
The people who fund and support them have a plan, it's called project 2025
I'm glad as well that people are finally taking notice - after years of calling out the right's blatantly obvious maleficence, this is the first time the "oh, don't worry, it's no big deal, they won't do _thaat"_ is less prevalent. This is the natural conclusion of everything they've been doing for my entire life and more, and the willful ignorance up until now has been maddening.
@@thenateshow4371 It's cool, I can see that. Honestly, I'm freaking out a bit, but it's nice not to be alone
It started with this vid, now comes the sequal..."We're really f*cked"...
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” -George Orwell, Animal Farm
I’m applying to law school atm and I don’t see the point of paying 15k a semester to learn precedents that the court will just throw out whenever Harlan Crow tells them to
You can always move to europe, we have civil law here.
@@cristiancojocaru9821 yeah, if he has the money to be a lawyer maybe he has the money to move XD. Might as well!
Get a library card and you can learn all you want for free. Law school is to have fun, get to know people, learn a way of thinking and get a job.
"So this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause."
Our country is now on an inexorable countdown toward dictatorship.
I love democracy.
Just what I thought. Star Wars really shows how a democratic becomes a dictatorship, but boy the US seems like it really wants an emperor nowadays
@@ivanvikalo4995 It's insanity, what was the point of the founding fathers breaking up the government so that the president wouldn't be able to amass power?
😂😂😂😂😂😂
But who's the dictator? Trump promises to attack Biden and his family if elected, but if Trump is elected Biden has two months in office before Trump takes over.
There will be 0 jailing and 100% personal responsibility for everything and everyone from now on.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."
Courts of law are supposed to be the peaceful option. They are refusing to do their job.
A lot of those politicians are like 70. They will be long gone by the time anything like that might happens so I don’t think they really care
There will never be another revolution from the right or left at least while we're alive
When he failed to convict the wannabe king Donald for an attempted coup, McConnell's excuse was, don't worry; there's no need to go on record opposing a powerful sociopath who is subject to prosecution in the nation's courts. But a majority of corrupt toadies on the Supreme Court was also unwilling to try to limit, prevent or prosecute official acts of a lawless fascist or to affirm Americans have any rights our rulers are bound to respect. But don't worry,' historically the crimes and atrocities officially ordered by dictators couldn't happen here because ...
"when the president does it that means it is not illegal"?
@@jaketheturkey7689 Idk about that...unless they plan to die before turning 74, they might just live to see it when the next president goes a little too far with their immunity. Keep in mind the 2 leading candidates for the presidency are also super old and neither are that great morally speaking...
Well considering Trump hired... what, 3 of them? ...I'm not really surprised they did this.
Remember when "If the president does it, then it isn't a crime" was the last nail in someone's legacy? Good times.
The tone has been set for usa
@@allyourcode As it's been with every potus in my lifetime, except for Nixon (and he was never convicted of anything either, actually)
@@davideaston6944
Clinton, of course, lied under oath, though he should never have been being asked those questions to begin with (Legally. ethically, he was pretty clearly in the wrong). Bush Jr. called into question the value of T-Bills, which could be argued to be treasonous, Biden is at least accused of mishandling classified documents, and Trump is pretty much using Title 18 as a checklist. That said...
I'm having trouble thinking of any crimes committed by Obama or G. H. W. Bush. I can't speak to Reagan or Carter, as I wasn't really aware enough of the world to make any judgements at that point. Can you enlighten me as to the criminal conduct for those four?
At least Nixon was actually very competent! Corrupt and a piece of shit bit he wasn't a train wreck and now look where we are
I thought we had a revolution to get rid of kings.
Now you need a revolution to get rid of a criminal president AND SCOTUS.
If we're not careful, there's going to have to be another one...
Those who don’t learn history are bound to repeat it.
Kevin Roberts just said, "we are in the midst of the second revolution". How is this not a declaration of War by the entire GOP? They use that word "war" constantly, publicly. They attempted to assassinate the Speaker of the House TWICE. Solomon Peña shot at people when he lost his election. How are we not discussing the 14th amendment and invoking the insurrection act declaring the ENTIRE GOP to be in open rebellion?
Funny thing is, I'm pretty sure George III had more restrictions on his power than POTUS does now.
🐸🍵
It's terrible to think that these judges decided to put the whole country in danger just to save one narcicistic man.
Completely unironically, Biden should use this newly granted power to Seal Team 6 the justices who made this decision and fill their seats immediately as illegally as possible, creating a 9-0 court that would stymy his opposition for half a century, and compel them to re-evaluate the decision upon his death. Then we’ll see if the conservative justices think it was a good idea to make this disastrous decision.
Bonus points if the court reverses this ruling and then turns himself in for the crimes he committed in those abuses. I very much dislike Biden because he's a bad person with bad ideas that has actively had a part in making this country worse for his entire political career, but that would instantly make him my favorite president.
Sounds like something a fascist dictator would do.
Please. He'll respect the boundaries while ignoring that EVERY REPUBLICAN will shit all over those same boundaries. He's dooming us.
@@davidfaustino4476 he really REALLY needs to retire.
@@geekychik86 But he's the best one we have currently. And there is no way we can elect Trump back into office.
“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
The piggies are about to start dancing 🤣
George Orwell was always trying to warn us
And the sheep are already changing their chant.
"Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better!"
I was just thinking that!
How scary the past can be when it predicts the future.
Oh that's so awesome animal farm reference thank you.
@@UnashamedCaliforniagirl This criticism was more directed towards communist regimes though. Thankfully, the US isn't communist (yet).
If anything The President should be held to the highest scrutiny of law, make them be leaders and not just reap the benefits.
They already are, for unofficial acts.
Yeah kinda like the cocaine scandal that got covered up so quickly and never brought up again. People really don’t realize the abuse of power under Biden that gets hidden because the media is on his side. Wake up
@@DemonChanSama Except that means nothing when all acts the president does are official acts. As the video said, there is no definition for unofficial acts and a very broad definition for official acts.
There is no other way of putting it than the fact that whichever party controls the supreme court can get a president in who is above all criminal law
@@ilost7489 That's irrelevant. My entire point is people are foaming at the mouth because of the supreme court ruling, not realizing that this isn't anything new, and hasn't been new for over 200 years.
They think its a new thing, they think its because the supreme court is just taking trumps side, and all I'm saying is that isn't the case, they are just interpreting the law. The Supreme court cannot just magically change laws or establish new ones.
Laws can be changed or amended only when Congress enacts, and the President signs, a later law.
In other words, the supreme court cant just change the laws willy nilly, it has to go through the process first, then the president has to sign it.
Meaning in order for the presidential immunity to be a new thing congress would have had to vote on it, then Biden would have had to sign it.
You think ~~Biden~~ Kamala Harris wants to grant trump immunity?
@@DemonChanSama
The supreme defines how the constitution is interpreted. It does not change the law, it does not have to go through any process.
I was taught all throughout my schooling that the three branches exist to balance out the power of the others, and to keep them in check. That was just violated horribly not once, but twice. Once for the ruling itself, and a second time because why are 6 people able to decide that the entire power structure of the government gets to just change? They were never in check, and they always had all of the power if they were able to make this ruling on a whim. I mean they've been abusing their power since always, but now its just stupid.
Honestly, this truly terrifies me. Because from the way this is described, the possibilities are beyond frightening. If a president cannot be prosecuted for anything he does that is part of his office, and part of his office is command of the military, then there is nothing that would preclude a president from finding highly sympathetic well-trained members of the military and setting them upon any of his opponents.... including the Supreme Court itself. He can send soldiers into the Supreme Court chambers, have those justices who most disagree with his beliefs killed in cold blood in public, issue pardons for those soldiers as they were acting for the office of the President, and then not suffer any prosecution.
We have just had the highest court in the land legally validate the possibility and actual use of an Order 66. I'm terrified for the future.
They're trying to create a real life Emperor Palpatine and his Galactic Empire 🙃
It almost makes me wish that Biden would use this to win the election.
But that's part of their disgusting calculus; they know the democrats won't abuse this.
"If you call yourself a moderate, then meet me in the middle," says the fascist. You take a step towards him, and he takes a step back. "I said meet me in the middle," the fascist repeats.
"So this is how Democracy dies.
With thunderous Applause."
your soldiers still has to follow lawfull orders,that should prevent something like that ,the us might not prosecute a president who did something like that but if it didnt he would be breaaking international law ,there are laws against crimes against your own people and deliberatly ruining democracy.
@@hannehanskov7560You must be joking. As the OP pointed out, the soldiers would be pardoned by the person who gave them the order, so yes they would have been breaking the law, but they would be effectively immune anyway. And international law is completely toothless, it all revolves around either cooperation from the country with the decisions of the international court or such a massive agreement from the other nations as to justify joint military actions against the bad actor. You think most of the countries of the UN would agree to invade the US, of all countries? Really?
Saying the President is immune from the law feels like a breach of checks and balances
And thank god someone actually got the point -- the point that every *legitimate* scholar has been trying to point out has unbalanced the co in co-equal. It is definitely a lot to take in, but that is the nature of the concern, where concern has been appropriately voiced.
that's because IT IS.
The right wing doesn't care. For them process is only a means to power and I will corrupt it as much as needed
Sounds like 3world politics
you don't say
At this rate, our constitution is nothing more than toilet paper.
Cap
It's been that since the 1800s.
Time for the states to take the homes of the SCOTUS Justices via eminent domain for public memorials for the defunct Constitution. The justification for site selections is obvious.
Nonsense. The Constitution isn't written on paper.
It's nothing more than a dog's chew toy now.
Always has been