The Trader Harbor
  • Business
  • Politics
  • World News
  • Stocks
  • Business
  • Politics
  • World News
  • Stocks

The Trader Harbor

Politics

Justices claim immunity ruling allows presidents to poison staff, have Navy SEALs kill political rivals

by admin July 2, 2024
July 2, 2024
Justices claim immunity ruling allows presidents to poison staff, have Navy SEALs kill political rivals

In their dissents from the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, the court’s liberal justices suggested that the majority opinion allows for a slew of alarming scenarios — including a president ordering a Navy SEAL team to ‘assassinate’ his political rival or even poisoning one of his own cabinet members.

The high court on Monday ruled 6-3 that a president has substantial immunity for official acts that occurred during his time in office. It’s a decision that has significant implications for former President Trump, whose prosecution on charges related to the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol breach and alleged 2020 election interference spurred the Supreme Court to hear the case. 

But although the majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly stated that the president ‘is not above the law’ and immunity is only a factor when it involves an ‘official act’ — the justices sent the case back to lower courts to determine if the acts at the center of Trump’s case were ‘official’ — the ruling raised a series of frightening possibilities, according to the trio of dissenting justices.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan wrote in the primary dissent that the court’s majority opinion ‘makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.’ 

‘The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,’ Sotomayor wrote. ‘Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.’

She continued: ‘Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.’

Sotomayor added that the majority decision has ‘shifted irrevocably’ the relationship between the president and the American people, being that ‘in every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.’

Yet another startling scenario is included in a footnote from a separate dissent authored by Jackson.

Noting that the president’s removal of a cabinet member would constitute an official act, Jackson says that ‘while the President may have the authority to decide to remove the Attorney General, for example, the question here is whether the President has the option to remove the Attorney General by, say, poisoning him to death.’

She adds: ‘Put another way, the issue here is not whether the President has exclusive removal power, but whether a generally applicable criminal law prohibiting murder can restrict how the President exercises that authority.’

Sotomayor’s conclusion summed up the prevailing tenor of her and Jackson’s writings: ‘With fear for our democracy, I dissent.’

Both dissents were taken to task in the court’s majority opinion.

‘As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today…,’ Roberts wrote.

He added: ‘Coming up short on reasoning, the dissents repeatedly level variations of the accusation that the Court has rendered the President ‘above the law.’’

Adding that the dissents came ‘up short on reasoning,’ Roberts wrote that the ‘positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President ‘feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.”

Sotomayor’s dissent swiftly reverberated throughout social media. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who lost to Trump in the 2016 election, posted on X that she agrees with Sotomayor’s stand against the ‘MAGA wing’ of the high court. 

‘It will be up to the American people this November to hold Donald Trump accountable,’ Clinton wrote.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Majority of voters favor Biden dropping out while Trump’s base ‘appears more solid’: poll
next post
AAPL and TSLA Kick Off Q2 With BREAKOUTS!

Related Posts

German conservative’s bid for chancellor falls short, a...

May 6, 2025

EXCLUSIVE: Dems to force votes on Medicaid as...

February 21, 2025

State Department breaks down plan to deal with...

May 14, 2025

Trump says Kamala Harris will not participate in...

August 20, 2024

Iran talks in Rome not happening this weekend...

May 2, 2025

FBI Director Christopher Wray cites increased foreign threats...

April 12, 2024

US to provide Ukraine with another $425M worth...

October 17, 2024

LIZ PEEK: Trump must stay strong, US reliance...

June 3, 2025

Hamas treatment of hostages ‘intolerable,’ Trump envoy says

March 7, 2025

The Great Biden Coverup: Aides debated whether to...

May 14, 2025

    Stay updated with the latest news, exclusive offers, and special promotions. Sign up now and be the first to know! As a member, you'll receive curated content, insider tips, and invitations to exclusive events. Don't miss out on being part of something special.


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Latest

    • Bed Bath & Beyond relaunches with first store in Nashville, plans dozens more

      August 10, 2025
    • The Real Drivers of This Market: AI, Semis & Robotics

      August 10, 2025
    • S&P 500 Breaking Out Again: What This Means for Your Portfolio

      August 10, 2025
    • Sydney Sweeney jeans controversy making advertising great again

      August 10, 2025
    • Nagasaki mayor issues chilling warning on 80th anniversary of atomic bombing

      August 10, 2025
    • Kash Patel celebrates major FBI achievements and record seizures during Trump’s first 200 days in office

      August 10, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (1,330)
    • Politics (4,206)
    • Stocks (1,577)
    • Uncategorized (45)
    • World News (1,323)
    • About us
    • Contact us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: TheTraderHarbor, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 thetraderharbor.com | All Rights Reserved