SCOTUS needs to get its head out of its a__. If the Supremes don't overturn their presidential immunity ruling, he *will* arrest them. Soon. - ThreadSky

brucewilson.bsky.social • 1 day ago

SCOTUS needs to get its head out of its a__.

If the Supremes don't overturn their presidential immunity ruling, he *will* arrest them. Soon.

Reposted from Isabel Santos

Trump reposted…to release “terrorists” near the homes of Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh—members of a Maryland country club—after they ruled migrants can’t be deported without due process. Jon Favreau: this is a president targeting justices for doing their jobs.
www.yahoo.com/news/trump-s...

Comments

johngpettus.bsky.social•1 day ago

If he doesn't, the next Democrat should. If only to show how insane that ruling is and force them to change it and restore the rule of law.

chicago21222.bsky.social•1 day ago

How will any Democrat do anything when the idiot voters refuse to give them a clear majority to get things done? This is strictly up to the voters. You are the ones who have the power.

johngpettus.bsky.social•1 day ago

You won't see me defending voters who elected Donald Trump twice.

jvsylvester.bsky.social•13 hours ago

I think that's a misreading of the decision. It doesn't say "a current President may do anything he wants." It says "criminal prosecutions of a former POTUS are to be limited."

The Constitutional remedy against a lawless current President lies with Congress.

johngpettus.bsky.social•3 hours ago

That is all credulous beyond believability.

As long as the President can in-joke any “official” action as a pretense, he is not subject to the law. And we can see from now and all of history it is trivial to come up with a pretense of an official act.

You know impeachment is a dead letter.

johngpettus.bsky.social•56 minutes ago

LOL, somehow autocorrect managed to turn "invoke" into "in-joke any 'official' action as a pretense" and I'm not mad at it.

jvsylvester.bsky.social•1 hour ago

A President may engage in a range of conduct that is unconstitutional but not, under any standard, criminal. The "immunity decision" does not mean that the courts are prevented from holding conduct as being unconstitutional and subject to equitable sanctions (i.e. "injunctions").

brucewilson.bsky.social•1 hour ago

Thanks for your informed opinion. I value such high quality Bsky comments that I can learn from - this doesn't happen so much at "X".

jvsylvester.bsky.social•1 hour ago

We're seeing that now.

Is an EO that purports to abolish "birthright citizenship" criminal or simply wrong and contrary to 14th A.? I'd think "not criminal, but invalid."

That's where I suggest Trump v. U.S. be limited to its circumstances: (1) former POTUS, (2) criminal prosecution.

johngpettus.bsky.social•1 hour ago

Are you saying that it IS, or that it should be?

And we're just relying on the OLC Memo that says that Presidents can never be criminally charged while in office. So that closes that loop. Presidents can commit crimes and not be prosecuted for them, as long as they manufacture an official pretext.

jvsylvester.bsky.social•1 hour ago

Trump wants us to think it's a license "to do anything," but I don't want to give him that.

I want the courts to be able to say, "Your order is invalid. You must change your policies and conduct."

I don't think the "immunity decision" is necessary for him to ignore the Constitutional order.

eugenehetzel.bsky.social•1 day ago

Next...thank you for the laugh.

jvsylvester.bsky.social•13 hours ago

They could overrule Trump vs. US today and it wouldn't affect his conduct. He's not going to be concerned about the risk of criminal prosecution after he's no longer President.

If he continues to harass the courts, only the Rs in Congress hold any (legal) prospect of stopping him.

arcanejill.bsky.social•1 day ago

I kind of hope they get arrested. Serve them right for giving him all that power.

anemiab.bsky.social•1 day ago

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply