Not The Onion

12560 readers

489 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay

410

Trump Lawyer Argues He Could Legally Order Assassination Of Political Rival (www.huffpost.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/nottheonion

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Former President Donald Trump’s attorney on Thursday argued that a president could order the assassination of his political rival and stage a military coup without being prosecuted for it.

Jack Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, made the “absolute immunity” argument in a Supreme Court hearing in the Department of Justice election interference case against the former president. Trump’s team has repeatedly claimed that the ex-president can’t be prosecuted for “official acts” he did while in office.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer, “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?”

“That could well be an official act,” Sauer responded.

Sotomayor seemed taken aback at that line of reasoning.

...

“How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup?” Kagan asked.

“I think it would depend on the circumstances,” Sauer said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 63 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

If I were Biden and the Supreme Court ruled it's legal, first thing I'd do is put Trump and every justice that ruled in favor in a CIA black site. Then I'd stack the court with justices that would rule it was illegal. Because that shit cannot stand.

[–] Crackhappy -4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

I mean, there is no legal reason that Biden could not just put forth more candidates for the supreme court, right now.

Edit: The only actual reason is because Biden is a coward.

[–] radix 16 points 8 months ago

There is no constitutional reason it can't be amended, but there is a statutory reason Biden can't act unilaterally on that: the Judiciary Act of 1869 limits the SCOTUS to nine members.

Congress would have to let him.

[–] Pretzilla 13 points 8 months ago

Moscow Mitch piped up and preeminently accused Biden of 'packing the court', were he to increase the number of justices.

Really rich statement given Mitch is the real packer.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Coward? What is it for him to fear?

[–] Crackhappy -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure. As I said, there is no actual reason for him to not put forward more justices for the Supreme Court.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What does this even mean? Put them forward where?

[–] Pretzilla 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Put them forward as in nominate them for approval to the bench

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Approval to what? There are no open seats

[–] Pretzilla 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Increase the size to 13 or something

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

I mean, there is no legal reason that Biden could not just put forth more candidates for the supreme court, right now.

This is the context of the thread. The size of the court is a law. It's not just something biden can "put judges forward"

[–] FlashMobOfOne -1 points 8 months ago

He's not a coward.

He's rich, and we're not. Carlin said it best: It's a big club and you (meaning we in this case) ain't in it.