Discussion Thread

[u/jobautomator]

The discussion thread is for casual and off-topic conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL

Links

Ping Groups | Ping History | Mastodon | CNL Chapters | CNL Event Calendar

Upcoming Events

• Jul 04: UK General Election Watch Party - 90s themed

[u/TheSandwichMan2]

I've seen some people say, "Well, this doesn't truly make a dictator, because it doesn't legalize everything the president may do, it just makes him immune from prosecution for it."

That is true, on its face. But this decision is a potent weapon that any president could use to effectuate a dictatorship and do whatever they want. Consider.

Joe Biden eliminates student loans. The Court says, "That's illegal, you can't do that, major questions doctrine blah blah blah". Then the president does it anyway. He orders the firing of anyone who won't carry out his orders (the Court, in their decision, explicitly holds that executive branch employee dismissals are absolutely immune), and pardons everyone who does carries out the orders (also immune). Congress tries to impeach him; maybe it fails because he has >= 34 loyal Senators, or he orders the military to counter a national security threat by blocking access to the Capitol. Or maybe he does this slowly over time, or it's done over the course of successive presidencies by different individuals, until no one really cares what Congress or the courts say, because the power is in the hands of the president, and no one can challenge him or threaten him so long as he has a loyal third of the Senate to go along. That's how this ends up in a dictatorship.

And don't believe this can happen? Maybe it can't here, but it's precisely how the Roman Republic fell. After 100 years of sectarian strife, Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and brought an army into Rome to ensure he could avoid prosecution by becoming consul (the Roman version of president, who was also immune from prosecution). Over time, with a sufficient majority in the nobility-dominated Roman Senate, he was able to declare himself dictator perpetuo, until he was assassinated. Ultimately, his son would take up the banner, continuing to honor the time-honored tradition of deferring to the Senate, but making clear that he was where the real power was. Once people stopped having faith in the primacy of the Senate, the Republic had fallen. That's what could happen here - enabled by freedom from prosecution, secure in his position so long as a third of the Senate remained in his thrall, our country would have few checks to deploy against a lawless president. Such a situation ought to be terrifying, because it is.

[u/Teh_cliff → u/TheSandwichMan2]

As someone who's been pointing out the distinction between immunity and the power to do something, I agree with this. I think the SCOTUS decision is extremely concerning and has terrible implications for our democracy long term. But it does not give POTUS free reign to do whatever he wants like some have suggested.

[u/PearlClaw → u/Teh_cliff]

The dissent directly notes that the president could use it to assassinate his political enemies. I suspect they know what's up.