US Supreme Court rules the President is a "King above the law"

by **Jamiet99uk** » Thu Jul 11, 2024 8:31 am

Pennsta7 wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:56 pm
@Crazy Anglican: "Taxation" but without representation, a principal bone of contention. Lord Frederic North,- the 'prime minister' in 1776 & his Tories in the parliament imposed the Intolerable Acts and other taxes, including 3d. tax on tea - not the groat but the principle outraged the colonists.
In the Commons, Edmund Burke dissented.
Understanding British parliamentary politics - refer to the journalism of H.H. Munro [Saki]; it's turn of the 20th Century and entitled collectively 'Alice in Westminster'.
The Boston Tea Party aside, the US Constitution's Bill of Rights hits at the British military practice of the day, using ordinary residences as billets/quarters.
Early on in the American rebellion, the Boston Massacre took its first Patriot victim, Crispus Attucks, a freedman former slave.
The Military Intelligence [oxymoron!] chief for the British, Major John Andre, was hanged as a spy Oct. 2, 1780, provoking a poem by Anna Seward excoriating Gen. George Washington:
'... Severe to use the pow'r that fortune gave,/
Thou cool determin'd murderer of the brave! ...'

* - Burke would be seized on by the modern-day Far Right (the Farther Far Right would restore the status quo ante vis a vis the Austro-Hungarian Empire) which culminated in the Goldwater presidential run.

Is this a Bot?

by **Pennsta7** » Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:56 pm

@Crazy Anglican: "Taxation" but without representation, a principal bone of contention. Lord Frederic North,- the 'prime minister' in 1776 & his Tories in the parliament imposed the Intolerable Acts and other taxes, including 3d. tax on tea - not the groat but the principle outraged the colonists.
In the Commons, Edmund Burke dissented.
Understanding British parliamentary politics - refer to the journalism of H.H. Munro [Saki]; it's turn of the 20th Century and entitled collectively 'Alice in Westminster'.
The Boston Tea Party aside, the US Constitution's Bill of Rights hits at the British military practice of the day, using ordinary residences as billets/quarters.
Early on in the American rebellion, the Boston Massacre took its first Patriot victim, Crispus Attucks, a freedman former slave.
The Military Intelligence [oxymoron!] chief for the British, Major John Andre, was hanged as a spy Oct. 2, 1780, provoking a poem by Anna Seward excoriating Gen. George Washington:
'... Severe to use the pow'r that fortune gave,/
Thou cool determin'd murderer of the brave! ...'

* - Burke would be seized on by the modern-day Far Right (the Farther Far Right would restore the status quo ante vis a vis the Austro-Hungarian Empire) which culminated in the Goldwater presidential run.

by **Crazy Anglican** » Wed Jul 03, 2024 12:10 am

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 02, 2024 11:53 pm
What I'm just as concerned about is that this ruling essentially eliminates whatsoever the need for personal character in a president (not that there was a lot of that already).

The guy who currently holds this increased scope of power, is telling us all that its a mistake and he shouldn't have it. The guy who desperately wants it is hailing the Supreme Court for protecting democracy by bestowing it. I think personal character in a president is more important than ever.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Tue Jul 02, 2024 11:53 pm

The Supreme Court shouldn't be making law, and neither should the Executive branch. The moment we deviated from that, the system of checks and balances began to crumble. This is but a product of that, and as sad as I am to see it, it's nothing unexpected to me.

What I'm just as concerned about is that this ruling essentially eliminates whatsoever the need for personal character in a president (not that there was a lot of that already).

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue Jul 02, 2024 10:59 pm

I should clarify that I'm Canadian. We have a similar Supreme Court appointment system to the UK. Despite the song and dance about how the judiciary itself establishes the list of potential appointees, the PM makes the final decision and no one with the "wrong" politics is ever appointed.

We're probably (in Canada and the US) asking too much of our Supreme Courts. Rather than just being the final arbiters on difficult cases, the Supreme Courts in Canada and the US are used as a crutch by cowardly legislatures that are unwilling or unable to do the hard work of making genuine democratic decisions on contentious policy issues (abortion in the US, assisted dying in Canada, etc.). The accurate perception that the courts are increasingly making policy decisions was bound to politicize their role. And it's just a bad idea to have the same group that says "yes" or "no" to thorny issues like abortion rights also decide contested election outcomes.

Since Supreme Courts in Canada and the U.S. have taken on an expanded role, they could probably benefit from reforms. A fixed term or age maximum is the low-hanging fruit in the US case (e.g., Canadian SC judges are forced to retire at 75). But good luck getting any reforms done in this political environment. It seems like the electorate would rather burn it all down.

by **Crazy Anglican** » Tue Jul 02, 2024 9:25 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 02, 2024 7:24 pm
The Democrats are reviving their proposal to expand the size of the Supreme Court, with the House Minority Leader saying explicitly that the aim is to change the ideological balance of the court.

Maybe the Supreme Court is fundamentally broken, but establishing the precedent that lawmakers can and should reshape it to fit their ideological preferences is deeply counterproductive. The Supreme Court is the last defense against Constitutional crises. Giving an appointed council of greybeards the final say on important issues seems like a bad system, but it's better than the alternative (might-makes-right politics and political violence).

I'm not sure. When everyone is trying to play within the rules it's a pretty good system. The Supreme Court is there to check the power of both the Legislative and Executive branches. They are the only members of the US government who have lifelong appointments, ostensibly to remove them from the political fray as no party can easily have them removed for noncompliance. Much like what Jamiet99uk says about the UK's Supreme Court sounds like it's comparable to the US Supreme Court in theory. When a seat comes open the President gets to appoint a replacement, but the candidate has to go through ratification by the Legislature. I agree that altering the fundamental makeup of the Court simply because we don't like how this particular set of Justices rule on things seems a mistake.

I would be in favor of a constitutional amendment that establishes age limits of 35-65 for any federal level office.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jul 02, 2024 8:36 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 02, 2024 7:24 pm
The Democrats are reviving their proposal to expand the size of the Supreme Court, with the House Minority Leader saying explicitly that the aim is to change the ideological balance of the court.

Maybe the Supreme Court is fundamentally broken, but establishing the precedent that lawmakers can and should reshape it to fit their ideological preferences is deeply counterproductive. The Supreme Court is the last defense against Constitutional crises. Giving an appointed council of greybeards the final say on important issues seems like a bad system, but it's better than the alternative (might-makes-right politics and political violence).

This is at the heart of your problem.

The one thing I think the UK does better here, is that our Supreme Court judges are selected on merit, by an independent panel, designed to prevent political influence.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue Jul 02, 2024 7:24 pm

The Democrats are reviving their proposal to expand the size of the Supreme Court, with the House Minority Leader saying explicitly that the aim is to change the ideological balance of the court.

Maybe the Supreme Court is fundamentally broken, but establishing the precedent that lawmakers can and should reshape it to fit their ideological preferences is deeply counterproductive. The Supreme Court is the last defense against Constitutional crises. Giving an appointed council of greybeards the final say on important issues seems like a bad system, but it's better than the alternative (might-makes-right politics and political violence).

by **Octavious** » Tue Jul 02, 2024 7:22 pm

*international, not internal

by **Octavious** » Tue Jul 02, 2024 7:05 pm

Crazy Anglican wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 02, 2024 2:41 pm
I don't exactly buy the similarity of King George to Biden though. Probably tongue in cheek?

Just a tad

Crazy Anglican wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 02, 2024 2:41 pm
Kinda sad that this is what our friends are thinking. We're definitely at a crossroads and the next months and years probably hold challenges the likes of which I haven't seen in my lifetime. It's going to be important to hear and take seriously criticism like this. We seem to be well into another east vs. west rivalry and having good friends has historically been one of our strengths.

It is nothing new. Every country that has a US military presence on its soil is subjected to stories of crimes committed by people who are then whisked away under some ridiculous claim of immunity to escape justice. They crop up every few years or so, and add to the general sense of a corrupt system that is fuelled by US drama and internal cases like Julian Assange. It is not helped that the entire concept of the SCOTUS sounds utterly ludicrous to anyone who looks into it.

This latest thing is depressing, but kind of what you expect to hear from the US. It's like when you hear Biden make a speech about the importance of new gun laws, yet his own family don't keep to the laws that already exist. You just shrug and move on.

by **Crazy Anglican** » Tue Jul 02, 2024 2:41 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 02, 2024 4:58 am
My first reaction is one of annoyance at this ludicrous American notion that kings are above the law. I know it's important to their creation myth to portray George III as some kind of Putinesque absolute dictator rather than an amiable figurehead suffering from crippling mental health issues (Bidenesque is perhaps more appropriate?), but isn't it time they grew up as a nation and grasped the reality of what kings actually are?

That speaks to the American psyche pretty accurately. We are these weird puritanical perverts. Certainly the reality of the revolution had more to do with taxation than merely deciding that all kings are tyrants. I don't exactly buy the similarity of King George to Biden though. Probably tongue in cheek?

Yeah, Coming from someone who, as a child, sang along with the Saturday morning School House Rock refrain "No more Kings!" it's been a big part of the mindset. I'm hoping that it sank in with enough of my countrymen that we can keep the toddler in chief from retaking office.

Octavious wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 02, 2024 4:58 am
My second reaction is "wasn't it ever thus?". Clearly not, I guess, but I've definitely heard of the term Presidential Immunity before, and always sort of assumed that it meant something along the lines of what the US court just said it did. Yes, it is bloody stupid, but I find it difficult to get too excited about a bloody stupid thing coming into existence that I thought was already there. It would be like seeing a news report about care homes in Japan run by robots. On the one hand you'd be saddened, and on the other slightly surprised that it was new.

Presidential Immunity has been claimed, Nixon claimed it back in Watergate in the 1970's. The Supreme Court at the time was very clear in their ruling that nobody is above the law. They said something similar this time, but it was pushed much further down in the ruling. I'd say that when you have a frontrunner for the office of President who complains bitterly about being held accountable for paying off porn stars so that he doesn't look too bad about having an extra-marital affair with one and for having to pay for character assassination and sexual harassment, yet also says "I could shoot someone in Times Square and it wouldn't affect my polling numbers"; I'd say it is a pretty significant departure from earlier precedents to suggest that there might be Presidential Immunity for him on any level. I believe up until this point the concept was that the President cannot be held personally accountable for doing his job. In essence, he isn't to be held as a murderer for sending troops into battle.

As I understand the ruling, it basically opened up a new category of "presumed immunity" that forces lower courts to sort out what acts are, are not, and might qualify as protected under the law. Which significantly slows down the process of holding Trump accountable for election interference. It's a departure from earlier rulings that started out with strong statements that nobody is above the law, but you're right that it did exist in some form before this.

Octavious wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 02, 2024 4:58 am
But yeah, the President is "a President above the law". Much like a lot of US servicemen based overseas seem above the law, and a fair few US companies for that matter. The US respect for the rule of law has never been all that great. It's reputation for being a polished turd upon a hill remains unchanged.

Kinda sad that this is what our friends are thinking. We're definitely at a crossroads and the next months and years probably hold challenges the likes of which I haven't seen in my lifetime. It's going to be important to hear and take seriously criticism like this. We seem to be well into another east vs. west rivalry and having good friends has historically been one of our strengths.

by **Octavious** » Tue Jul 02, 2024 4:58 am

My first reaction is one of annoyance at this ludicrous American notion that kings are above the law. I know it's important to their creation myth to portray George III as some kind of Putinesque absolute dictator rather than an amiable figurehead suffering from crippling mental health issues (Bidenesque is perhaps more appropriate?), but isn't it time they grew up as a nation and grasped the reality of what kings actually are?

My second reaction is "wasn't it ever thus?". Clearly not, I guess, but I've definitely heard of the term Presidential Immunity before, and always sort of assumed that it meant something along the lines of what the US court just said it did. Yes, it is bloody stupid, but I find it difficult to get too excited about a bloody stupid thing coming into existence that I thought was already there. It would be like seeing a news report about care homes in Japan run by robots. On the one hand you'd be saddened, and on the other slightly surprised that it was new.

But yeah, the President is "a President above the law". Much like a lot of US servicemen based overseas seem above the law, and a fair few US companies for that matter. The US respect for the rule of law has never been all that great. It's reputation for being a polished turd upon a hill remains unchanged.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon Jul 01, 2024 10:35 pm

Pennsta7 wrote: ↑
Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:34 pm
'You have baked me too Long,/
I must sugar my brain.'
- L Carrol [Chas. Dodgson]
The advantage of constitutional monarchy where there is not a written constitution, an historical citation:
19th century. 'Every little child born alive/
is either a little Liberal,/
or else a little Conservative - Gilbert & Sullivan operetta song
1911 House of Lords expansion threat reforms primacy of House of Commons.
1930s President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's move to expand the # of Supreme Court justices (was several, then 5, etc.) backfires and fizzles out & some New Deal reforming agencies don't survive the Court's rulings.
2024 - Some 6 to 3, 'conservative' versus 'liberal' court rulings.
* UK: English civil wars conclude 1688 with the Glorious Revolution and the 1690 defeat & flight of the Old Pretender at the Battle of the Boyne.
ERGO, If USA politicos can avoid another civil war or an attempted invasion and-or secession, a long line of Italianate dictators, caesaropapism, ancient Greek 'tyrants' seems assuredly the aim of non-recused and interested parties vying for ultimate supremacy.

Hello.

Was this chaotic word salad meant to mean anything, or are you a Bot?

by **Pennsta7** » Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:34 pm

'You have baked me too Long,/
I must sugar my brain.'
- L Carrol [Chas. Dodgson]
The advantage of constitutional monarchy where there is not a written constitution, an historical citation:
19th century. 'Every little child born alive/
is either a little Liberal,/
or else a little Conservative - Gilbert & Sullivan operetta song
1911 House of Lords expansion threat reforms primacy of House of Commons.
1930s President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's move to expand the # of Supreme Court justices (was several, then 5, etc.) backfires and fizzles out & some New Deal reforming agencies don't survive the Court's rulings.
2024 - Some 6 to 3, 'conservative' versus 'liberal' court rulings.
* UK: English civil wars conclude 1688 with the Glorious Revolution and the 1690 defeat & flight of the Old Pretender at the Battle of the Boyne.
ERGO, If USA politicos can avoid another civil war or an attempted invasion and-or secession, a long line of Italianate dictators, caesaropapism, ancient Greek 'tyrants' seems assuredly the aim of non-recused and interested parties vying for ultimate supremacy.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon Jul 01, 2024 5:39 pm

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the President is immune from criminal law for acts carried out in his (or her) official capacity.

This abandonment of the rule of law is frightening and makes the President, in the words of Justice Sotomayor (who dissented against the judgement) "a King, above the law".

That no-one should be above the law is at the core of the concept of the rule of law.

Americans, your country is not a democracy and does not have the rule of law. I feel for you.

US Supreme Court rules the President is a "King above the law"

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: US Supreme Court rules the President is a "King above the law"

Re: US Supreme Court rules the President is a "King above the law"

Re: US Supreme Court rules the President is a "King above the law"

Re: US Supreme Court rules the President is a "King above the law"

Re: US Supreme Court rules the President is a "King above the law"

Re: US Supreme Court rules the President is a "King above the law"

Re: US Supreme Court rules the President is a "King above the law"

Re: US Supreme Court rules the President is a "King above the law"

Re: US Supreme Court rules the President is a "King above the law"

Re: US Supreme Court rules the President is a "King above the law"

Re: US Supreme Court rules the President is a "King above the law"

Re: US Supreme Court rules the President is a "King above the law"

Re: US Supreme Court rules the President is a "King above the law"

Re: US Supreme Court rules the President is a "King above the law"

Re: US Supreme Court rules the President is a "King above the law"

US Supreme Court rules the President is a "King above the law"