46th President of the United States, Joe Biden
Discussion
PinkHouse said:
You think the president has the authority to fire a supreme court justice? Which mechanism can he use to achieve this?
He can't. It is wish fulfilment nonsense from people who have convinced themselves that Trump will be a fascist dictator so Biden's helpers should make him a dictator first. LF5335 said:
PinkHouse said:
You think the president has the authority to fire a supreme court justice? Which mechanism can he use to achieve this?
The ruling that SCOTUS made means he can do just that. And nobody can question it at all. SCOTUS have just armed and loaded up their own firing squad.
Even if the present SCOTUS don’t like it and appeal being fired by the time the appeal goes through there will be an all new SCOTUS to oversee the appeal.
Scrimpton said:
PinkHouse said:
You think the president has the authority to fire a supreme court justice? Which mechanism can he use to achieve this?
He can't. It is wish fulfilment nonsense from people who have convinced themselves that Trump will be a fascist dictator so Biden's helpers should make him a dictator first. McGee_22 said:
LF5335 said:
PinkHouse said:
You think the president has the authority to fire a supreme court justice? Which mechanism can he use to achieve this?
The ruling that SCOTUS made means he can do just that. And nobody can question it at all. SCOTUS have just armed and loaded up their own firing squad.
Even if the present SCOTUS don’t like it and appeal being fired by the time the appeal goes through there will be an all new SCOTUS to oversee the appeal.
The President could order their arrest on grounds of improper influence, bribery, etc. But the people carrying out the order don’t necessarily have immunity just because they follow an order (thank Nuremberg…), so it most likely won’t happen.
Trump, on the other hand, appears to be able to attract sufficiently morally bankrupt people that he might just get what he wanted.
What SCOTUS have said AIUI is that a President doesn’t have to follow any Congressionally-passed laws of the land. So he could shred all his records (what use is the Presidential Records Act if the President had immunity), write Executive Orders that are otherwise illegal, and so on.
So long as Congress isn’t sufficiently pissed off as to impeach, there’s now apparently no check.
isaldiri said:
Scrimpton said:
PinkHouse said:
You think the president has the authority to fire a supreme court justice? Which mechanism can he use to achieve this?
He can't. It is wish fulfilment nonsense from people who have convinced themselves that Trump will be a fascist dictator so Biden's helpers should make him a dictator first. "Would there be a suitable term or phrase applicable to such an abuse of power?"
The left -
Roderick Spode said:
isaldiri said:
Scrimpton said:
PinkHouse said:
You think the president has the authority to fire a supreme court justice? Which mechanism can he use to achieve this?
He can't. It is wish fulfilment nonsense from people who have convinced themselves that Trump will be a fascist dictator so Biden's helpers should make him a dictator first. "Would there be a suitable term or phrase applicable to such an abuse of power?"
The left -
I’m sympathetic to those who say Biden should take steps to strengthen the Constitution against attack (not launch a vendetta against Trump).
For instance, could Biden restrict campaign finance or PACs by Executive Order? Could he enforce a code of conduct / ethics code for SCOTUS Justices?
Roderick Spode said:
isaldiri said:
Scrimpton said:
PinkHouse said:
You think the president has the authority to fire a supreme court justice? Which mechanism can he use to achieve this?
He can't. It is wish fulfilment nonsense from people who have convinced themselves that Trump will be a fascist dictator so Biden's helpers should make him a dictator first. "Would there be a suitable term or phrase applicable to such an abuse of power?"
The left -
And it's not "trump might"
It's something trump did.
He literally organized a set of fake electors in order to present different electoral college votes, in multiple states, and directly instructed his vice president to ratify them.
The scotus literally stated that trump instructing Pence to ratify the false electors was an official act, (for which trump has absolute immunity.)
M.
It's something trump did.
He literally organized a set of fake electors in order to present different electoral college votes, in multiple states, and directly instructed his vice president to ratify them.
The scotus literally stated that trump instructing Pence to ratify the false electors was an official act, (for which trump has absolute immunity.)
M.
LF5335 said:
Roderick Spode said:
isaldiri said:
Scrimpton said:
PinkHouse said:
You think the president has the authority to fire a supreme court justice? Which mechanism can he use to achieve this?
He can't. It is wish fulfilment nonsense from people who have convinced themselves that Trump will be a fascist dictator so Biden's helpers should make him a dictator first. "Would there be a suitable term or phrase applicable to such an abuse of power?"
The left -
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the majority of them are as thick as pigs
t.Roderick Spode said:
isaldiri said:
Scrimpton said:
PinkHouse said:
You think the president has the authority to fire a supreme court justice? Which mechanism can he use to achieve this?
He can't. It is wish fulfilment nonsense from people who have convinced themselves that Trump will be a fascist dictator so Biden's helpers should make him a dictator first. "Would there be a suitable term or phrase applicable to such an abuse of power?"
The left -
Mortarboard said:
And it's not "trump might"
It's something trump did.
He literally organized a set of fake electors in order to present different electoral college votes, in multiple states, and directly instructed his vice president to ratify them.
The scotus literally stated that trump instructing Pence to ratify the false electors was an official act, (for which trump has absolute immunity.)
M.
You can bet the 6 who railroaded this load of bIt's something trump did.
He literally organized a set of fake electors in order to present different electoral college votes, in multiple states, and directly instructed his vice president to ratify them.
The scotus literally stated that trump instructing Pence to ratify the false electors was an official act, (for which trump has absolute immunity.)
M.
ks through would be the first to squeal for police protection if insurrectionist yahoos started erecting a gallows outside the supreme court.Countdown said:
LF5335 said:
Roderick Spode said:
isaldiri said:
Scrimpton said:
PinkHouse said:
You think the president has the authority to fire a supreme court justice? Which mechanism can he use to achieve this?
He can't. It is wish fulfilment nonsense from people who have convinced themselves that Trump will be a fascist dictator so Biden's helpers should make him a dictator first. "Would there be a suitable term or phrase applicable to such an abuse of power?"
The left -
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the majority of them are as thick as pigs
t.It seems an amusing lack of nuance works both ways.... any criticism of the incumbent President inevitably induces a reaction of "AAAAA TRUMP SUPPORTER" from certain posters.
It's so predictable, and is why debate on the 45/46/47 threads is essentially entrenched mud slinging.
skwdenyer said:
I’m not sure how a President can force the firing of a Justice. But assuming it were possible, why shouldn’t Biden just do it now?
As others have pointed out, the SCOTUS decision on the question of Presidential immunity has made it possible for a President to now just make decrees like firing SCOTUS members as they are deemed Official Acts and therefore immune from prosecution or question.McGee_22 said:
skwdenyer said:
I’m not sure how a President can force the firing of a Justice. But assuming it were possible, why shouldn’t Biden just do it now?
As others have pointed out, the SCOTUS decision on the question of Presidential immunity has made it possible for a President to now just make decrees like firing SCOTUS members as they are deemed Official Acts and therefore immune from prosecution or question.SCOTUS exists by virtue of the Constitution (so that's not a Presidential power). Its operation is determined by Congress. The number of justices is set by the Judiciary Act 1869. The process of appointing SCOTUS Justices is set out in the Constitution. The President has no power to act alone. There is no power for the President to fire a Justice.
If the President doesn't have a power by virtue of the Constitution, he cannot exercise it in an official capacity. That means he isn't immune and, in any case, nobody else needs to follow his order.
Article III Section 1 sets out that a Justice shall hold their office "during good behaviour" which means they need to be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanours."
Now, a SCOTUS Justice can be prosecuted (e.g. Judge Claiborne), so Biden could direct the FBI to find evidence and, ir it is there, prosecute one or more Justices. If a conviction were secured, it would be hard (but not impossible) for Congress to refuse to impeach the Justice. But there's no time for that - Biden should have done that years ago (and didn't need the immunity shield to do so).
This is why there's a discussion about assassinations, targeted prosecution, and so on - those are heads under which Presidential power already exists - the immunity is for the exercise of those powers.
This immunity ruling is IMHO a travesty. But it doesn't turn the President into a dictator who can do whatever he pleases; it does at least appear to limit its scope to areas under which the President already has power.
Roderick Spode said:
Countdown said:
LF5335 said:
Roderick Spode said:
isaldiri said:
Scrimpton said:
PinkHouse said:
You think the president has the authority to fire a supreme court justice? Which mechanism can he use to achieve this?
He can't. It is wish fulfilment nonsense from people who have convinced themselves that Trump will be a fascist dictator so Biden's helpers should make him a dictator first. "Would there be a suitable term or phrase applicable to such an abuse of power?"
The left -
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the majority of them are as thick as pigs
t.It seems an amusing lack of nuance works both ways.... any criticism of the incumbent President inevitably induces a reaction of "AAAAA TRUMP SUPPORTER" from certain posters.
It's so predictable, and is why debate on the 45/46/47 threads is essentially entrenched mud slinging.
I used to point out that I can't stand Trump, indeed my concern is that the Dems are repeating their Hillary mistake by running a candidate terrible enough for Trump to win. I don't bother now, they've made their minds up. Remember, until the debate anyone who questioned Biden's mental state was a Trumper apparently. Let them crack on with that and this latest weirdo conspiracy b
ks that seems to have been beamed straight into their empty heads from the hivemind.skwdenyer said:
SCOTUS appear to have said that he can exercise all the power afforded to his office in any way he likes, legal or otherwise. A President can have a power, but have it restricted by a law; it is the latter he's receiving immunity from prosecution over.
SCOTUS exists by virtue of the Constitution (so that's not a Presidential power). Its operation is determined by Congress. The number of justices is set by the Judiciary Act 1869. The process of appointing SCOTUS Justices is set out in the Constitution. The President has no power to act alone. There is no power for the President to fire a Justice.
If the President doesn't have a power by virtue of the Constitution, he cannot exercise it in an official capacity. That means he isn't immune and, in any case, nobody else needs to follow his order.
Article III Section 1 sets out that a Justice shall hold their office "during good behaviour" which means they need to be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanours."
Now, a SCOTUS Justice can be prosecuted (e.g. Judge Claiborne), so Biden could direct the FBI to find evidence and, ir it is there, prosecute one or more Justices. If a conviction were secured, it would be hard (but not impossible) for Congress to refuse to impeach the Justice. But there's no time for that - Biden should have done that years ago (and didn't need the immunity shield to do so).
This is why there's a discussion about assassinations, targeted prosecution, and so on - those are heads under which Presidential power already exists - the immunity is for the exercise of those powers.
This immunity ruling is IMHO a travesty. But it doesn't turn the President into a dictator who can do whatever he pleases; it does at least appear to limit its scope to areas under which the President already has power.
Good post, thanks.SCOTUS exists by virtue of the Constitution (so that's not a Presidential power). Its operation is determined by Congress. The number of justices is set by the Judiciary Act 1869. The process of appointing SCOTUS Justices is set out in the Constitution. The President has no power to act alone. There is no power for the President to fire a Justice.
If the President doesn't have a power by virtue of the Constitution, he cannot exercise it in an official capacity. That means he isn't immune and, in any case, nobody else needs to follow his order.
Article III Section 1 sets out that a Justice shall hold their office "during good behaviour" which means they need to be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanours."
Now, a SCOTUS Justice can be prosecuted (e.g. Judge Claiborne), so Biden could direct the FBI to find evidence and, ir it is there, prosecute one or more Justices. If a conviction were secured, it would be hard (but not impossible) for Congress to refuse to impeach the Justice. But there's no time for that - Biden should have done that years ago (and didn't need the immunity shield to do so).
This is why there's a discussion about assassinations, targeted prosecution, and so on - those are heads under which Presidential power already exists - the immunity is for the exercise of those powers.
This immunity ruling is IMHO a travesty. But it doesn't turn the President into a dictator who can do whatever he pleases; it does at least appear to limit its scope to areas under which the President already has power.
skwdenyer said:
But it doesn't turn the President into a dictator who can do whatever he pleases; it does at least appear to limit its scope to areas under which the President already has power.
But it does also expressly indicate how a president with a dictatorial style might directly take advantage. M.
Mortarboard said:
skwdenyer said:
But it doesn't turn the President into a dictator who can do whatever he pleases; it does at least appear to limit its scope to areas under which the President already has power.
But it does also expressly indicate how a president with a dictatorial style might directly take advantage. M.
What SCOTUS are saying is that the President is now, in effect, immune from prosecution for things like obstruction of justice, destruction of records, etc. and, further, for things like inciting insurrection.
skwdenyer said:
Mortarboard said:
skwdenyer said:
But it doesn't turn the President into a dictator who can do whatever he pleases; it does at least appear to limit its scope to areas under which the President already has power.
But it does also expressly indicate how a president with a dictatorial style might directly take advantage. M.
What SCOTUS are saying is that the President is now, in effect, immune from prosecution for things like obstruction of justice, destruction of records, etc. and, further, for things like inciting insurrection.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff