> read that it's absolute immunity in core function, which seems pretty damn broad to me
It's limited in scope, and still subject to impeachment, which immunity comes from because otherwise going through impeachment would be pointless.
> Can you explain how nonreviewable power over control of the military and DOJ fits the description of "limited"?
The President can't just kill anyone he wants, it's just a power he doesn't have. The President is not judge, jury and executioner. Having control doesn't mean you can do what you want with it.
> e won't need to -- the whole point of giving the President this broad unreviewable power was so that non federal officials couldn't harass the president by charging him with crimes for carrying out his official duties.
You're beginning to understand
> Where again what constitutes an "official duty" is left up to SCOTUS.
And?
> The prospect of this very ruling was considered so insane by legal scholars so as to be implausible, and yet here we are!
These same legal scholars were fine with not charging the last 4 presidents with war crimes and other atrocities. Because it was always the case, nothing has changed except limiting the scope of presidential immunity.
> Judges don't have to find the assassination of elected officials to be legal, they just have to find the Supreme Court doesn't allow them to use most of the evidence of that crime at trial, and that they must presume motive for the assassination was good. How do you prosecute that case? Can't subpoena any evidence because it wouldn't survive an "absolute immunity" challenge by the President's lawyers.
If the armed forces are killing politicians then at this point the Constitution is a mere piece of paper and no amount of super-majority or SCOTUS rulings is going to make a difference.
> That is the implication of the plain text of this law, it's with Justice Sotomayor is worried about, and I think it's pretty beneath you to try to compare her vast level of expertise to Alex Jones.
Sotomayor is an emotional militant judge and not taken seriously outside left leaning political militant circles. The oral hearings over the vaccine mandates is a good example: "but there are millions of dead children" she said crying. Yes, she did that. This is JFK assasination level conspiracy theory whether you like it or not.
Okay but the entire DOJ and military is a huge freaking scope, so what's the real limit here? We're talking about absolute nonreviewable control of the most powerful army and the biggest law firm on the planet.
> still subject to impeachment
This might be reassuring if we didn't go through two egregious examples of impeachment that didn't result in removal. In the first one, Trump attempted to us federal dollars to extort a bribe from a from the Ukrainian President. At the impeachment trial, Trump via Alan Dershowitz argued this conduct was okay because it was taken to increase his electoral chances, and Trump viewed his own election as benefitting America, therefore his actions were to benefit America and not grounds for removal. Because after all how can you be removed for doing what you think is best? From the trial:
“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in an impeachment”
The Senate AGREED with that argument and acquitted him on the charges. So even in the case of extorting a bribe, impeachment is not operable as long as the executive claims the extortion and bribe were for the good of the country. The supreme court in their latest ruling seems to agree with this perspective.
In the second impeachment, Trump attempted to stay in power by orchestrating a coup. Mitch McConnell all but voted to impeach, but fell short because in his view, the impeachment happened after POTUS left office and there was a criminal justice system to hold him accountable.
On the first part, well that just means the period between an election and inauguration is a now a crime-spree zone for any lame duck POTUS. They can commit any crimes they want using the DOJ and military during that period, and we know the Senate won't impeach because there's too little time for the impeachment to happen, and now we know the DOJ will probably not be able to prosecute due to this ruling hamstringing the types of evidence and charges that can be brought.
On the second part, we have yet to see whether the system of justice can hold him accountable for the coup. To date, it has not worked and it's been 3.5 years. So it's not clear the federal system of justice can hold any former executive accountable for any criminal conduct whatsoever. States have proven to be more effective at charging and trying criminal conduct, but we have yet to see if it results in any accountability.
So no, impeachment doesn't fix this system. This is a huge exploit. Since it was added intentionally we might call it a back door.
> The President can't just kill anyone he wants, it's just a power he doesn't have. The President is not judge, jury and executioner. Having control doesn't mean you can do what you want with it.
Who is going to stop him though? That's the thing people don't understand about executive power. Before the thing stopping that conduct was the thought it was illegal and he would be prosecuted for it after he left office. But now? Now as long as the act was "official", good luck proving it without evidence. Good luck even charging it.
How did people end up in Guantanamo Bay without trial? Tortured? Imprisoned for years without charges or a trial. Who stopped that from happening? What makes you think you're safe from the same treatment now?
> And?
Well that's a pretty big hole in your argument since you're trying to convince me the powers are limited. If the limits of the powers are currently unbounded and the bounds are left up to the people who just gave POTUS sweeping immunity over the DOJ and military, then what are the actual limitations? Neither you nor I nor the SCOTUS judges actually know, so your insisting that the powers are limited is not really true.
> These same legal scholars were fine with not charging the last 4 presidents with war crimes and other atrocities. nothing has changed except limiting the scope of presidential immunity.
The ones I had listened to had predicted some limited immunity around things like the military and DOJ, especially the DOJ.
> If the armed forces are killing politicians then at this point the Constitution is a mere piece
I mean... yes? The point is to raise the alarm before it gets that dire by pointing out the ways we can go from here to there. Are you suggesting that it's impossible the armed forces would kill politicians in America? Doesn't that happen elsewhere in the world? Hasn't there already been a civil war here?
> Sotomayor is an emotional militant judge and not taken seriously outside left leaning political militant circles.
Lol I wouldn't even say the same things about the right leaning justices, glad to see where your extreme biases are.
It's limited in scope, and still subject to impeachment, which immunity comes from because otherwise going through impeachment would be pointless.
> Can you explain how nonreviewable power over control of the military and DOJ fits the description of "limited"?
The President can't just kill anyone he wants, it's just a power he doesn't have. The President is not judge, jury and executioner. Having control doesn't mean you can do what you want with it.
> e won't need to -- the whole point of giving the President this broad unreviewable power was so that non federal officials couldn't harass the president by charging him with crimes for carrying out his official duties.
You're beginning to understand
> Where again what constitutes an "official duty" is left up to SCOTUS.
And?
> The prospect of this very ruling was considered so insane by legal scholars so as to be implausible, and yet here we are!
These same legal scholars were fine with not charging the last 4 presidents with war crimes and other atrocities. Because it was always the case, nothing has changed except limiting the scope of presidential immunity.
> Judges don't have to find the assassination of elected officials to be legal, they just have to find the Supreme Court doesn't allow them to use most of the evidence of that crime at trial, and that they must presume motive for the assassination was good. How do you prosecute that case? Can't subpoena any evidence because it wouldn't survive an "absolute immunity" challenge by the President's lawyers.
If the armed forces are killing politicians then at this point the Constitution is a mere piece of paper and no amount of super-majority or SCOTUS rulings is going to make a difference.
> That is the implication of the plain text of this law, it's with Justice Sotomayor is worried about, and I think it's pretty beneath you to try to compare her vast level of expertise to Alex Jones.
Sotomayor is an emotional militant judge and not taken seriously outside left leaning political militant circles. The oral hearings over the vaccine mandates is a good example: "but there are millions of dead children" she said crying. Yes, she did that. This is JFK assasination level conspiracy theory whether you like it or not.