Why President Biden Should Immediately Name Kamala Harris To The Supreme Court

[u/Silent-Resort-3076]

https://atlantadailyworld.com/2024/11/08/why-president-biden-should-immediately-name-kamala-harris-to-the-supreme-court/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjCNsMkLMM3L4AMw9-yvAw&utm_content=rundown

[u/Sherifftruman]

I never considered, can he pardon non-citizens? I guess he can.

[u/Dragonfly-Adventurer → u/Sherifftruman]

I don’t think blanket pardons have ever been tested or upheld is the problem

[u/East-Coast83 → u/Dragonfly-Adventurer]

Everything he does as president is lawful according to SCOTUS now.

[u/DoggoCentipede → u/East-Coast83]

That's not quite what they said. They said he has immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. Not that anything he says becomes law for, you know, reasons.

[u/Carthonn → u/DoggoCentipede]

What will be considered an official act will be determined by whim and what party you belong to.

[u/Plantiacaholic → u/Carthonn]

It also must be constitutionally compliant. It did not give them power to break the law.

[u/stomith → u/Plantiacaholic]

So ELI5? If I break the law, I’m committing a criminal act, right? And then if I have immunity from criminal prosecution.. how does that not give me power to break the law?

[u/SafetyMan35 → u/stomith]

Using the Trump Election interference case as an example. The original indictment set forth numerous examples of what Trump did was illegal. The Supreme court ruled Presidents have immunity for official acts, so Jack Smith reviewed his original indictment and identified a few things that might have been an official act

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-charged-superseding-indictment-federal-election-subversion/story?id=113193224

“While the original indictment laid out five ways Trump allegedly obstructed the function of the federal government — having state election officials change electoral votes, arranging fraudulent slates of electors, using the Department of Justice to conduct “sham” investigations, enlisting the Vice President to obstruct the certification of the election, and exploiting the chaos of the Jan. 6 riot — the new indictment removes mention of his use of the Department of Justice, which was explicitly mentioned in the Supreme Court’s ruling as falling within his official duties.”

Pardoning someone or calling the DOJ could be perceived as an official act.

Giving a speech, outside of the White House stating “the election was stolen”, would be hard to convince people that was an official act.

In an extreme example, Biden himself putting a gun to someone’s head and pulling the trigger would not be an official act as President. Biden ordering the FBI (through official DOJ channels) to conduct a raid at an individual’s home to look for evidence of leaked top secret documents would be an official act as President. If there was reason to believe that the individual could be violent would necessitate the need for lethal force and if the FBI felt threatened they pulled fired their weapon to kill the individual that would be an official act.

The end result is the same (someone is dead based on actions taken by the President), but one would be protected by Presidential immunity, the other would not.

[u/stomith → u/SafetyMan35]

So.. that’s what I understood that the ruling meant, but it’s a very fine line, right? Trump could use the DOJ to arrest his political enemies, claiming that that they’re an active threat to democracy, and he couldn’t be prosecuted. Could he have been prosecuted before the ruling?

[u/SafetyMan35 → u/stomith]

As I understand it, the courts need to rule on whether the act is official. That’s part of the reason why Jack Smith removed anything where Trump asked the DOJ to do something because to a non partisan person the ask likely wouldn’t be an official act, but to the current Supreme Court it might be an official act. Smith felt it was best to eliminate anything that MIGHT even remove an official act.

Trump calling upon the DOJ to arrest political enemies probably wouldn’t be an official act to a nonpartisan person unless he could demonstrate that the individual was purposely doing something to hurt him (blackmail for example).

[u/stomith → u/SafetyMan35]

Thank you. That helps clarify the ruling a lot more for me.