Here's Why Biden Should Arrest and Deport Trump, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett immediately:
Today is a RED LETTER DAY IN U.S. HISTORY - this is arguably the most consequential Supreme Court ruling in U.S. history.
I am I being facetious or hyperbolic? Absolutely not.
“The Court suggested that just because an act was official, it was something a President could do, but the rest of us couldn’t do.” - Prof. Tribe
It is not an overstatement to say that today this GOP Court created a fascist tool a future rogue GOP President could use to commit virtually any criminal act they want and get away with it, as long as that President declares it an “official act of the President.”
The Court ruled that any past, present or future President is not immune from criminal prosecution for personal acts.
HOWEVER, the Court ruled that a President is absolutely, 100% IMMUNE FROM ANY OFFICIAL ACT AS PRESIDENT. Until today’s GOP ruling, such had never been the case.
Who decides what’s an “official act?”
If a President declares that he is about to commit or just committed what he calls an “official act” - then the President is immune from criminal prosecution from his U.S. Attorney General.
If the opposition party, whether Republicans or Democrats disagreed with the President’s assertion that what he did was NOT an official act, then the opposition party would have to file a lawsuit and wait for justice to take its course; and unfortunately, that could easily extend beyond the duration of a President’s four year term.
Impeach and remove a sitting President?
It takes 67 U.S. Senators to impeach and remove a sitting President or a U.S. Supreme Court justice.
That will never happen because no Republican Senator would ever vote to impeach a Republican President OR a GOP U.S. Supreme Court justice no matter how many crimes he or she commits.
Even worse, that course of justice would eventually lead right back to this GOP-controlled Supreme Court who would most likely not grant cert to review any such oppositional challenge.
WELCOME TO FASCISM IN AMERICA!
Today the GOP majority on the Court gave an unprecedented GREENLIGHT to any past, present or future President committing criminal acts in his official capacity as President.
I say pursuant to today’s ruling by this rogue GOP Supreme Court awarding Trump immunity for all official acts, Biden should immediately declare Trump and the six GOP Supreme Court justices “enemy combatants,” arrest, depatriot and deport Trump and the six treasonist justices to the Iranian desert.
Let me restate that:
This rogue GOP Court immunized any past or future President from being criminally prosecuted from committing criminal acts in his or her official capacity as President.
This has never been the case until today’s GOP ruling.
In other words, if elected, Trump could order the FBI or military to assassinate Americans Trump don’t like and he would be immune from those criminal acts.
That’s the degree of official immunity this rogue, bastard GOP Supreme Court created today for past and future Presidents and American democracy.
For example, this Republican Court just ruled that conversations between the President and the DOJ cannot be used as evidence against the President in any criminal prosecution.
That means if elected President, Trump could violate any criminal law in his official capacity as President - state or federal - and remain immune from any criminal prosecution AS LONG AS PRESIDENT TRUMP DECLARES IT AN OFFICIAL ACT OF THE PRESIDENT.
This rogue ruling is in fact even worse than what I am describing here.
I believe this GOP Court has cornered America into having to accept a fascist President executing Christian conservative pipe dreams under the guise of “official acts.”
This rogue Republican Court created NEW RULES for the lower courts who hold any hearings regarding these issues and matters.
These new GOP Supreme Court rules in effect immunize Trump from further criminal prosecution.
CNN and other media outlets are casting this ruling as “PRESIDENT IS IMMUNE FOR OFFICIAL ACTS ONLY.” Only? Give me a break.
As if the term “only” diminishes the BRAND NEW, gross, unfettered power this rogue Court just gave any past, present or future Presidents to commit crimes without fear of criminal prosecution - as long as the President deems his crimes, AN “OFFICIAL ACT.”
You should read what the dissenting minority wrote in their opinions:
John Roberts minimalized the rogue decision:
Sonia Sotomayor Pens Fearful Dissent in Trump Immunity Case, Saying Decision Makes Him ‘King Above the Law’
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune,” the Supreme Court justice wrote.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, 70, wrote in a powerful dissenting opinion on Monday, July 1, that shielding Trump from prosecution for his White House actions sets a precedent that U.S. commanders-in-chief can abuse their powers without facing punishment.
"When [a president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution," she writes. "Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
She continued by claiming that with the conservative justices' ruling, they are essentially incentivizing presidents to break the law.
"Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority's message today," she said.
"Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done," she added. "The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."
The Supreme Court case that was decided on July 1 centered around whether Trump can be tried on four felony counts for allegedly attempting to undo Joe Biden's 2020 presidential win.
The charges, which were revealed in an indictment last August, accused Trump of trying to convince his own Justice Department, former Vice President Mike Pence, and state and local officials that they should overturn the election in his favor.
Trump argued that he has immunity from criminal prosecution over actions he performed during his presidency.
The court agreed, in part, ruling in a 6-3 decision on ideological lines that presidents do enjoy total immunity from any actions performed in their "official" capacity as president. "Unofficial acts" can be prosecuted, they said, though very few things a president does are considered unofficial.
The Supreme Court's ruling now kicks the case back down to a lower court to determine whether any of the allegations in Trump's Jan. 6 case fall under the category of "unofficial" acts, and whether a fair Jan. 6 trial could move forward with the Supreme Court's ideology in mind.
In the official dissent, which was co-signed by liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor argued that the court's ruling has implications far beyond Trump himself because it "effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding."
"This new official-acts immunity now 'lies about like a loaded weapon' for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation," she added.
If Trump were to be elected again in November, he would begin his presidency with a permission slip to carry forward with some of the retribution he's alluded to on the 2024 campaign trail.
Perhaps most telling of the possible ramifications is how Sotomayor signed her opinion: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe says:
“…..sophmoric and foolish judgments of this Court.”
“It is a five-alarm fire for self-government under democracy.” - Ketanji Brown Jackson
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's liberal bloc issued blistering dissents Monday in the Trump immunity ruling, arguing that it "reshapes the institution of the presidency" and "makes a mockery" of the constitutional principle that no man is above the law.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reading her dissent from the bench, said that "relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom ... the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more."
She added that "because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent."
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on ideological lines that former President Donald Trump has immunity for some of his conduct as president but not unofficial acts in the federal election interference case. The court did not determine what constitutes an "official" act in this case, leaving that to the lower court.
Follow live updates on the Trump immunity hearing
The decision adds another hurdle and further delay to special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of the former president. Trump was indicted last year on charges he conspired to "overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election."
Sotomayor said that the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, invents "an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law."
Their ruling, she went on, makes three moves that she said "completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability." Sotomayor said the court creates absolute immunity for the president's exercise of "core constitutional powers," creates "expansive immunity for all 'official acts,'" and "declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him."
Sotomayor warned that the ruling "will have disastrous consequences for the Presidency and for our democracy" and that it sends the message: “Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends.”
She added, “Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in a concurring opinion that she agreed with some of the majority opinion but not all of it. Notably, she said she agreed with the dissenters that Trump’s immune conduct should still be allowed to be used as evidence in his trial.
“The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable,” she said.
SUPREME COURTSupreme Court rules Trump has some immunity from prosecution
SUPREME COURTSupreme Court punts on challenges to GOP social media laws
In her own written dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that the majority's ruling "breaks new and dangerous ground."
"Departing from the traditional model of individual accountability, the majority has concocted something entirely different: a Presidential accountability model that creates immunity—an exemption from criminal law — applicable only to the most powerful official in our Government," she wrote.
Jackson warned that under the majority's "new Presidential accountability mode," a hypothetical president "who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics...or one who indisputably instigates an unsuccessful coup...has a fair shot at getting immunity."
The chief justice dismissed the dissents, suggesting that his three liberal colleagues had misinterpreted the majority's opinion and were engaging in "fear mongering." Roberts argued that they "strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today." He wrote that "like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity."
He also appeared to scoff at Sotomayor for what she included in her dissent, saying that her "most compelling piece of evidence consists of excerpted statements of Charles Pinckney from an 1800 Senate debate." He continued, "But those statements reflect only the now-discredited argument that any immunity not expressly mentioned in the Constitution must not exist."
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in a concurring opinion that she agreed with some of the majority opinion but not all of it. Notably, she said she agreed with Sotomayor that Trump’s immune conduct should still be allowed to be used as evidence in his trial.
“The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable,” she said.
Soon after the court issued the ruling, Trump celebrated the decision on his Truth Social account, writing in all caps: "Big win for our Constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American!"
A Biden campaign adviser, on the other hand, said that the ruling doesn't change what happened on Jan. 6, 2021.
"Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election," the adviser said. "Trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the Capitol: he thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself."
