Too much immunity for presidents

 Today, the conservative Supreme Court got it wrong on a major immunity decision.

I mostly agree with them: A U.S. president should be immune from liability for actions taken within the scope of his or her presidency ("official acts").

That's fine*, but the court stopped there. It should have given us a narrow scope of what "official actions" are. With no limit given, there are two likelihoods, both negative, and I curse this Court for it: (a) A President can now make 'political prosecutions' against perceived enemies, with impunity; and (b) Any attempt by lower courts to impose limits are going to go back to the Supreme Court, causing years of delay whilst a dictator president is free to do evil left and right against their own citizens.

Welcome to the new America, where all that stands between the people and 'whimsical imprisonment' is the personal ethics of our president. If we ever have a leader who throws political enemies into prison, with nothing anyone can do about it, it will be the fault of six idiots on the Supreme Court, led by that smiling man in the photo.

*It's not completely fine: It still lets imbeciles like W. Bush push for war, for the wrong reasons. But it also protects presidents from liability (civil or criminal) if they do their best and just make a bad decision, as we all do sometimes. Trump's team was right when they said a president must be free to make both good and bad decisions, without having to worry whether they're going to jail. IF (I add) those decisions are properly made within the scope of their duties. It IS within the scope to create and enforce regulations, or to send in troops to quell a riot. It is NOT within the scope (say I , if I were king) if they use the Justice Department to trump up charges against a political rival and park them in prison when they committed no crime.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's time to harp on the US deficit again!

Image
Time to harp on the deficit again. 43% of every dollar spent by our federal govt is being borrowed. The government's expenses are only 57% covered by revenue (from taxes, mostly). This is wildly unsustainable, and in a strong economy it is beyond reckless--it's criminal. In my opinion, it can only lead to the destruction of our currency, our economy, and our very country, which means of course that you and I may lose all our assets and possibly our lives. The only way to avoid this is to do what no politician is willing to even talk about: Dramatically raise taxes and dramatically cut spending. Doing that might cause a deep recession and greatly increase poverty, but it would save the country. The irony is that NOT doing it will also cause a deep recession and increase poverty, but it will further bring about the end of the US. When you've borrowed all that you can, then you are out of options. You are bankrupt; the game is over. We are close to that point. No one can kno
Read more

Oh, this is nice: Shell Oil feigning support for renewable energy while worsening climate change:

Image
  This article is interesting:  Oh, this is very nice: Shell Oil is paying its shareholders $23B in a special dividend, while cutting its staff 25% in the group that's working to move the company into low-carbon business. Nice. The only way to fight this, on a personal level, is to work very hard to use less oil and natural gas. Fly less! Drive a hybrid or all-electric car! Replace gas stoves and furnaces and water heaters with electric. Look for ways to use less plastic. You know, if any company has a spare $23B that they don't know what to do with, it might be nice if they paid more in taxes, or donated to nonprofits that feed, house, and educate people. Our governments don't take care of the destitute, so maybe the big corporations should.
Read more

Absolutely there are limits on free speech

Image
  Absolutely there are limits on free speech*. College presidents are clueless when they defend free speech so much that they fail to discipline students who call for the extermination of Jews. And they should discipline students who call for the extermination of Palestinians, or any civilian peoples. It's surprising, that high-paid college presidents, who have access to good attorneys, would let themselves be paraded thru a shitshow in Congress, over this. Rep. Stefanik, though guilty of grandstanding for political gain, was right to complain about this, though I hope she remembers there are limits to free speech, whenever she has an opportunity to combat hate speech against gays, atheists, and liberals, which has been so vociferously spouted by some members of her party. (*Most people agree that you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Similary, I believe that the intentional publication (especially by mass media) of a known lie, as true, should carry civil an
Read more