Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

crickets

(26,168 posts)

7. Of course. The entire discussion is hypothetical, and this is not the first time today

Reply to blm (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 25, 2024, 08:47 PM

Apr 2024

that someone has made the same point:

Link to tweet

Annie van Leur
@AnnevanLeur
Jack Smith could stop Trump's immunity case COLD with one argument to SCOTUS

Joyce Vance:
[image text - "Why not take it a step further and tell the court that if Trump has the sort of broad immunity he claims he does, a president would be free to order the assassination of Supreme Court justices who disagree with him, and could not be prosecuted for doing that. Make the impact of Trump's argument unmistakeable."]
10:58 AM · Apr 24, 2024 · 50.8K Views

Somebody should point this out to SCOTUS, to put it in the record and to make them think about what presidential immunity really means. Every time I remember of some of the arguments being made today, I turn into a sputtering mess. It's so upsetting.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

7 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

TheRickles mtngirl47 yliza HUAJIAO Arger68 Wednesdays hedda_foil

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Would the Justices agree that the President can order [View all] enough Apr 2024 OP

President Biden has a green light! LetMyPeopleVote Apr 2024 #1

The court is really only ruling for this plaintiff, while pretending it's ruling for the presidency. ancianita Apr 2024 #14

"Is that how this works? " I'd sure like to be able to throw this out there just to chum the waters... Hekate Apr 2024 #20

Excellent point Tribetime Apr 2024 #2

It's all about perspective, isn't it? crickets Apr 2024 #3

I wonder which one should be first? LiberalFighter Apr 2024 #4

Not necessary to go one by one NanaCat Apr 2024 #16

That's why they won't rule that he has blanket immunity. Nt Fiendish Thingy Apr 2024 #5

They'll just conveniently rule Diraven Apr 2024 #15

As I said in other threads: it'll be Bush v. Gore, version 2.0 Wednesdays Apr 2024 #19

That was a lie the first time, and will be again. Whatever the Court does is a precedent. Hekate Apr 2024 #21

Probably a good idea to state this is a hypothetical question ala blm Apr 2024 #6

Of course. The entire discussion is hypothetical, and this is not the first time today crickets Apr 2024 #7

Lets take it one step further odins folly Apr 2024 #13

I understand what you mean, though it seems pretty obvious given what they were talking about today. enough Apr 2024 #8

Just good to stay in CYA mode on a public forum. blm Apr 2024 #10

Biden could order special forces to abduct Jesse Watters and forced him to watch Rachel Maddow 24/7 for months LetMyPeopleVote Apr 2024 #9

The best reductio ad absurdum I've seen. Thanks. TheRickles Apr 2024 #11

I kept thinking that the President could send the Supremes to Guantanamo Bay mtngirl47 Apr 2024 #12

Technically, I believe that the President can send anyone he wants DemocraticPatriot Apr 2024 #18

Or, more to the point, 5 or 6 Supreme Court justices ?? DemocraticPatriot Apr 2024 #17

A Proclamation by President Biden👇💯👍✊ /s LetMyPeopleVote Apr 2024 #22