FBXL Social

[3/3] … before he was president) has delayed the sentencing, to consider whether any of the evidence in the trial mentioned subsequent "official" acts. *Sotomayor says, in stark dissent, ruling makes president "king above the law".*

@rms Supposedly, the leader of a country in the anglosphere has always had some kind of immunity (cc: @sj_zero)
What do you say to that?

@rms Every single country have this kind of immunity, it's part of the separation of powers. Don't get maliced by the same media who tried to kill your image.

Not defending Trump here because I don't care, but Presidents can do whatever they want technically, Congress is responsible to take notice and do impeachments every time they (government officials) violate the constitution and the laws.

This is intended to prevent "the next president" to do political persecutions, in the same way they been doing this last year.

@waltercool @rms Is it worth allowing the president to do warfare just so that his opponents can't do lawfare though? I don't know about that.

@waltercool @rms Can't the constitution, precedent, and independence of judiciary prevent the weaponization of laws instead?
Although maybe the American judiciary isn't that independent these days. I don't know much about it.

@Hyolobrika @rms Your other option is Peru.

They have every single ex-president in jail (or home arrest) by normal courts. No one wants to be president at that country because opposition would throw them on jail.

They wait until a mandate is over, then make trials about their government until they get jailed, regardless of left or right wing.

@Hyolobrika @rms Technically no.

There is a cycle to keep balance on the separation of power. No one wants Judiciary more powerful than other, otherwise you get Brazil (Alexandre de Moraes)

@waltercool @Hyolobrika @rms If the executive branch enforces, and the judicial tells the executive they can’t do something, what happens if the executive just doesn’t listen? The judicial branch has no teeth.
Biden has disregarded Supreme Court multiple times.

replies
1
announces
0
likes
0

@Hyolobrika @rms @waltercool if the issue were preventing "lawfare" and spirals of politically motivated convictions, the decision would look nothing like this. yes, it would grant immunity to the President.

BUT IT WOULD NARROW HIS PARDON POWER AND ENABLE INQUIRIES INTO MOTIVATION.

it would hold unelected subordinates inescapably accountable for following unlawful orders.

this is the accountability equilibrium we created after the Nixon administration. Nixon's henchmen went to jail.

1/

@Hyolobrika @rms @waltercool this is a decision calculated, in its own words, to enable "bold and unhesitating" (ha!) Presidential action, not to prevent scurrilous prosecutions. it is about reducing accountability, quite explicitly with respect to the President himself, but implicitly of all subordinates by placing the pardon power within the charmed circle of that which cannot be questioned. /fin