The Rude Pundit: The Question that Justice Sonia Sotomayor Should Have Asked About Absolute Immunity for Presidents

[babylonsister]

https://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2024/04/the-question-that-justice-sonia.html

The Rude Pundit
Proudly lowering the level of political discourse
4/28/2024
The Question that Justice Sonia Sotomayor Should Have Asked About Absolute Immunity for Presidents


Last week's Supreme Court hearing in Trump v. United States (as accurate a case name as I've seen), aka "The One About Immunity from Prosecution," was, to put it mildly, a shitshow at the monkeyfuck factory. In a case that should never have been taken, at least 5 of the justices, all the men, seemed to actually believe that Donald Trump and, presumably (but who knows), every president should have some immunity from being charged and tried as a criminal from acts done while president. In this case, it's to try to get Trump out of any responsibility for the January 6 insurrection, which Special Counsel Jack Smith is trying to get to trial. Frankly, the hearing was a disgrace, a disgusting display of a deviant ideology that was disposed of in the goddamned Declaration of Independence. These right-wing dickholes actually tried to come up with ways that laws don't apply to a president.

snip//

See, what Sotomayor should have asked at that moment of panicky bullshit from Alito was "Could President Biden decide Justice Alito is corrupt and order that he be assassinated? Is that an official act for which he could get immunity?" Because then Sauer would have had to repeat his answer that it "could well be an official act" and then that puts things in fucking stark territory: A vote to uphold this insanity is a vote for your own murder.

That's the thing that annoys the shit out of me about the Supreme Court. Only rarely do the justices allow that their decisions might have an impact on themselves, or, you know, real people in general. I know that they're supposed to put that out of their heads, that they're supposed to concentrate on dry issues of the law (which is how, earlier in the week, a case about allowing abortions to save women's lives became a discussion of the fucking spending clause in the Constitution, even as the women on the court tried to assert the bloody reality of the situation). But this would have have been the perfect moment to remind some conservative motherfuckers that their own asses are on the line here.

Hell, Sotomayor could have gone scorched earth and asked, "Could President Biden decide that Justice Alito and his whole family need to be murdered for the good of the country as part of his duty to protect the nation and still be immune from prosecution? Could he order the killing of Justice Alito's grandchildren in order to end the Alito bloodline? Could he have Justice Thomas's wife, Ginni, a true enemy of democracy, eliminated?" What's the fucking limit? That's a legitimate question if you're going to entertain the completely irrational idea that a president is above the law.

See, all this shit has consequences. It's fucking time that the Supreme Court justices are asked how they would like the consequences of their decisions enacted on them. The rest of us sure as fuck will have to deal with them.

(Note: I know that Trump's lawyers said that the only way that said murderer/president might face some sanction is if they're impeached and convicted and thrown out of office. But they also argued in 2021 that Trump shouldn't be convicted in his second impeachment trial because he could face criminal charges after he's out of office. So, really, none of the process shit matters, and it's time we stop pretending that it does.)

[jaxexpat]

1. I mostly wish I'd said all that first. But there you are.

I especially appreciate the "end the Alito bloodline" part. BTW. No, I don't advocate killing innocents and still it's appropriate to understand how any person-of-a-certain-age's death can result in the "end of a bloodline".

So dramatic, this murder thing, eh? as if you didn't know

[CharleyDog]

12. The RW Court knows these powers are only for trump, and any others do not apply.

President Kamala Harris will have no such powers, and the Court will, in fact, proclaim presidents must be curtailed. They will say this with a straight face, and the press will tut tut tsk tsk.

[TheRickles]

2. Thank you, RP. Reductio ad absurdum.

[GiqueCee]

3. Once again, the Rude Pundit...

Last edited Mon Apr 29, 2024, 01:12 PM - Edit history (1)

... nails it. He never fails to distill the essence of a complex argument down to the questions that bring absolute clarity to whatever insanity is being dissected.
Sotomayor should, indeed, have posed those very queries to the treacherous slime trying to ratfuck America as he is representing Trump, if only to watch Alito turn a ghostly shade of pale and soil himself at the realization most of the nation might applaud such a solution to his malign influence, and especially that of Sir Matthew Hale, whose fevered dreams inspired one of the most despicable opinions ever conceived by a Supreme Court Justice.
Alito will be despised and reviled for centuries to come.

[BlueMTexpat]

10. Not just "will be."

IS despised and reviled! NOW!

As well he should be. TSF's Minion!

[MiHale]

4. A-freaking-men! ...

I think that they don’t realize how deviant some individuals can be.

[sop]

5. The corruption of the Supreme Court is yet another example of what happens when individuals are immune

from any consequences for their actions. Supreme Court justices do not have to recuse themselves from cases even when their conflicts are obvious to all. They are free to accept shady money and other gifts from cronies and others with business before the court. Their wives can openly attempt to overturn an election and support insurrection. Still, SC Justices cannot be removed from the court and they are immune from any legal consequences.

[Baitball Blogger]

6. That's a question, that if Sotomayer failed to ask, should be printed in newspapers

across the country:

"Could President Biden decide Justice Alito is corrupt and order that he be assassinated? Is that an official act for which he could get immunity?"

[niyad]

7. Spot on as always, RP.

[Kid Berwyn]

8. Bet she brings it up in chambers.

Going from what she has said, Justice Sotomayor understands the real issue:

Sammy Alito wants to muzzle President Biden while simultaneously placing the Shitnozzle and future GOP Presidents above the law.

[Goddessartist]

9. Perfectly put.

I was wondering why they didn't ask more pertinent, pointed, questions.

Love RP.

[LaMouffette]

11. If Justice Sotomayor had asked this question, and if the radical conservative justices had responded truthfully,

(which would only happen if a five-year-old made a birthday wish of "I wish the Supreme Court Justices couldn't tell a lie!" before blowing out his or her birthday cake candles), they would have all responded:

"No. Joe Biden would NOT be immune from prosecution, because, we, the majority of the SC Court, have the prerogative to change our minds willy-nilly depending on whether we're talking about a Republican president or a Democratic president. Gosh, isn't it obvious? Do we even have to say that out loud?!"

But I wish she would ask this question so that their hypocrisy would at least be exposed.