Ruth Ben-Ghiat: "To normalize extreme ideas, you get them circulating through institutions and the public sphere, aiming for prestigious platforms that offer maximum legitimacy. Enter the Supreme Court, which is making itself the tool of bad actors who want issues that should be settled in a democracy seen as up for discussion–including whether a head of state can order an assassination of a political rival and pay no consequence." #SCOTUS
https://lucid.substack.com/p/information-warfare-and-the-supreme
@Nonya_Bidniss If you look at the #history of #governments, the very last act of a #judiciary is to give the #executive unlimited power.
@hopefulhumanizer @Nonya_Bidniss
Oh! That is a very important point that #SCOTUS better be including in their immunity deliberations.
@Edelruth SCOTUS doesn't really have authority to include that in their immunity deliberations.
The question before them is whether the claimed immunity exists regardless of whether it's a good idea or not.
It's key to the democratic processes of the US government that the judicial branch doesn't override the people just because the judges think it's a bad idea.
@volkris @hopefulhumanizer @Nonya_Bidniss
Hm. The argument on the table appears to be that while considering whether the President, under color of his office, can act with guaranteed immunity, and everything the President does after being sworn in is under color of the office.
[Which is immediately wrong, because campaigning is already acknowledged as outside of the office]
/1
@volkris @hopefulhumanizer @Nonya_Bidniss
BUT it is not to consider the basic framework in which there is separation of powers between executive, congress, and the judiciary?
Seems to me, if they decide on immunity for the Presidency, then there must be a balancing/ countering immunity tied to the other two branches: for the Speaker, perhaps? And maybe the Chief Justice? Otherwise, how are they "equal and separate"?
/2
@volkris @hopefulhumanizer @Nonya_Bidniss
And that plainly cannot work. So. Constitutionally, the President must abide by their oath of office, and face the consequences for failing to do so.
Why even bother with an oath if the President is under no obligation to keep it?
/3 fin
Oh, no, that's not quite the argument. Both sides in the case were explicit that not everything the president does after swearing in counts as an official act to be covered under this question.
The issue brought to the Supreme Court is a lower court claiming that a former president can be prosecuted even for official acts that were perfectly legal at the time.
So as often happens, SCOTUS is sitting as a court of appeals, really judging the lower court, not the underlying case.
Nothing in this case would excuse a president from abiding by their oath of office. Anything they'd do outside of their oath would not be immune from prosecution.
@hopefulhumanizer @Nonya_Bidniss
