Thrifty Banker
  • Politics
  • Business
  • World
  • Investing
  • Politics
  • Business
  • World
  • Investing

Thrifty Banker

Politics

Justices claim immunity ruling allows presidents to poison staff, have Navy SEALs kill political rivals

by July 2, 2024
July 2, 2024
Justices claim immunity ruling allows presidents to poison staff, have Navy SEALs kill political rivals

In their dissents from the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, the court’s liberal justices suggested that the majority opinion allows for a slew of alarming scenarios — including a president ordering a Navy SEAL team to ‘assassinate’ his political rival or even poisoning one of his own cabinet members.

The high court on Monday ruled 6-3 that a president has substantial immunity for official acts that occurred during his time in office. It’s a decision that has significant implications for former President Trump, whose prosecution on charges related to the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol breach and alleged 2020 election interference spurred the Supreme Court to hear the case. 

But although the majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly stated that the president ‘is not above the law’ and immunity is only a factor when it involves an ‘official act’ — the justices sent the case back to lower courts to determine if the acts at the center of Trump’s case were ‘official’ — the ruling raised a series of frightening possibilities, according to the trio of dissenting justices.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan wrote in the primary dissent that the court’s majority opinion ‘makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.’ 

‘The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,’ Sotomayor wrote. ‘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: ‘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.’

Sotomayor added that the majority decision has ‘shifted irrevocably’ the relationship between the president and the American people, being that ‘in every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.’

Yet another startling scenario is included in a footnote from a separate dissent authored by Jackson.

Noting that the president’s removal of a cabinet member would constitute an official act, Jackson says that ‘while the President may have the authority to decide to remove the Attorney General, for example, the question here is whether the President has the option to remove the Attorney General by, say, poisoning him to death.’

She adds: ‘Put another way, the issue here is not whether the President has exclusive removal power, but whether a generally applicable criminal law prohibiting murder can restrict how the President exercises that authority.’

Sotomayor’s conclusion summed up the prevailing tenor of her and Jackson’s writings: ‘With fear for our democracy, I dissent.’

Both dissents were taken to task in the court’s majority opinion.

‘As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today…,’ Roberts wrote.

He added: ‘Coming up short on reasoning, the dissents repeatedly level variations of the accusation that the Court has rendered the President ‘above the law.’’

Adding that the dissents came ‘up short on reasoning,’ Roberts wrote that the ‘positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President ‘feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.”

Sotomayor’s dissent swiftly reverberated throughout social media. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who lost to Trump in the 2016 election, posted on X that she agrees with Sotomayor’s stand against the ‘MAGA wing’ of the high court. 

‘It will be up to the American people this November to hold Donald Trump accountable,’ Clinton wrote.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Majority of voters favor Biden dropping out while Trump’s base ‘appears more solid’: poll
next post
Turkish officials call for calm as social media hysteria fuels anti-Syrian riots

Related Posts

Hitchhiker’s Guide to how the Santos expulsion will...

December 2, 2023

Gaza hospital blast: Here’s what we know

October 19, 2023

Hunter Biden business associate to testify on Biden’s...

January 25, 2024

Former Colombian President Ivan Duque calls for US...

October 11, 2023

Here’s what too many federal agencies don’t understand...

June 27, 2024

House speaker ‘chaos’ could benefit Dems as race...

October 23, 2023

Sen. Blackburn concerned over Biden supplemental request to...

October 21, 2023

Manchin causes yet another headache for Democrats with...

November 11, 2023

Mike Johnson on the clock

November 24, 2023

Schumer, Romney shelter from Hamas rocket fire in...

October 16, 2023

    Sign up for our newsletter to receive the latest insights, updates, and exclusive content straight to your inbox! Whether it's industry news, expert advice, or inspiring stories, we bring you valuable information that you won't find anywhere else. Stay connected with us!


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Popular

    • 1

      Top 10 Countries for Natural Gas Production (Updated 2024)

      April 6, 2024
    • 2

      Understanding Lithium Mineralogy from an Investment Perspective

      September 12, 2023
    • 3

      US Capital Global Facilitates $50MM Financing to Accelerate Charbone Hydrogen’s North American Expansion

      June 6, 2025
    • 4

      Israel confirms it is arming Hamas rivals in operation opposition calls ‘complete madness’

      June 6, 2025
    • 5

      A GOP operative accused a monastery of voter fraud. Nuns fought back.

      January 3, 2025
    • 6

      Crypto Market Recap: Strategy Eyes US$1B Raise for Bitcoin Push, UK Regulator Reverses ETN Ban

      June 6, 2025
    • 7

      China’s aircraft carriers send message in the open Pacific for the first time – and bigger and more powerful ships are coming

      June 16, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (1,053)
    • Investing (2,079)
    • Politics (2,977)
    • Uncategorized (20)
    • World (3,387)
    • About us
    • Contact us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: thriftybanker.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 thriftybanker.com | All Rights Reserved