The Supreme Court this week severely undermined the principle that no one is above the law – a bedrock of our nation’s system of government – with its historic ruling declaring that presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts. In her fierce dissent, Justice Sotomayor accused the conservative majority of making the president a “king above the law.”
Eminent legal scholar and one of the most cited by SCOTUS, Yale’s Akhil Reed Amar, joins Ali Velshi to discuss the far-reaching implications of this seismic decision. Not mincing words, he calls it “one of the worst decisions in all of constitutional history.” It’s “not just in violation of the Constitution,” says Amar, “but also incoherent.”
Gonna be a big election, I hope the internet bots are wrong with their defeatist hysterics.
I think that Biden should exercise that power granted to him by SCOTUS and restore the Constitution.
Use that power to do the right thing instead of destroying the right thing.
It isn’t complicated!
If the maga crowd threatens blood bath unless the Democrats submit to the threat, Biden should make it clear that he is in power and if there is any blood shed it will be the blood of insurrectionists.
It has nothing to do with using power per se. It is how that power is used that counts.
The establishment of the US against a royal British tyranny was a rightful use of power by the fledgling Nation.
Then writing the Constitution and establishing a Democracy
What we have here is the Republicans trying to reverse the status.
Biden has the Constitutional right to declare Martial Law against a Domestic threat to the Democracy/
Biden would be using power in defense of the Constitution, not for establishing a dictatorship.
And codify slavery into the Constitution. There was discussion at the time, and a structure to support, the move toward greater freedom. They did exactly the opposite until the Civil War.
Heather Cox Richardson covered this today in her daily letter. The Supreme Court reserved the right, along with lower courts, to determine what is an official act. They will rule in favor of Trump and his successors and against any other President. Their ruling created a nation that is not ruled by laws, it’s ruled by 5 judges and whoever they want to support.
That’s what I said originally and you argued. SCOTUS doesn’t debate laws, they take cases. Specifically, Trump can’t be charged for some of his actions in his attempt to overturn the election. No one else is going to test those waters and the Supremes will protect them based on who it is not on some sense of what is just or right.
People are prosecuted for false records under New York law. What they’re not prosecuted for is, for false records covering up a crime under New York law that makes it illegal to violate some unnamed law to influence an election. The SCOTUS is going to ask for clarification of the case and New York does not have one. Trump is the only case this lawfare has ever been use on.
Three co-equal branches of government would be a good start.
President not being above the law, that would be nice to bring back.
Supreme Court justices supposed to be wise old persons, above the fray of tooth’n claw politics, that would be very cool.
But all that needs an informed and engaged electorate - that’s been the big bugaboo, back in my day we were taught civics and it meant something, what do kids learn these days? Hollywood nation rah rah rah, keep your hands off of my stash.
Brutal cynicism is an escape. Even in a world/time as messed up as ours.
Trump is already practicing dictatorship. He installed his people in responsible positions and they do want he tells them to do .
1/6 is proof of his trying to halt the lawful process of changed
separation of powers. The judges he installed in SCOTUS gave him unlimited powers to commit crimes if he wanted to if elected.
Biden does believe in the separation of powers and will not weaponize the justice department against his political rivals.
Perhaps you have noticed that Biden has stayed out of the Trump trials, lest he influenced the fair processor trial by a jury of peers.
