What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Razgovory]

We are so fucked.

[crazy canuck]

I don't understand your post, Jos.  There is an international convention on refugees.  And under that convention refugees are people fleeing their country of origin because of persecution or fear for their life.

It would be a bit inconsistent for someone to make a claim they needed to flee while staying in their own country.

On the other hand people can apply to immigrate from within their own country.  But of course those people are not refugees.

Also, as I think someone else mentioned, Refugees are seeking asylum.  There is no distinction between "asylum seekers" and refugees.

[Josquius]

I don't understand your post, Jos.  There is an international convention on refugees.  And under that convention refugees are people fleeing their country of origin because of persecution or fear for their life.

It would be a bit inconsistent for someone to make a claim they needed to flee while staying in their own country.

On the other hand people can apply to immigrate from within their own country.  But of course those people are not refugees.

Also, as I think someone else mentioned, Refugees are seeking asylum.  There is no distinction between "asylum seekers" and refugees.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/refugees-asylum-seekers-and-migrants/#:~:text=An%20asylum%20seeker%20is%20a,decision%20on%20their%20asylum%20claim

Asylum seeker /refugee differences.

As to claiming asylum elsewhere - I didn't say in their home country. I said elsewhere. Why force people to traipse across half the world to the country where they want to claim asylum?
A better "Rwanda policy" than the stupid one the UK has tried to push would be to let people go to Rwanda directly and apply for UK asylum there.
That this wasn't an option shows actual solutions weren't the goal of the plan.
In the US case, why not let people apply from Latin American countries.

[crazy canuck]

I don't know who amnesty.org is but it would help if they cited some source to back up their self described definitions.

Try reading this

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.23_convention%20refugees.pdf

[Tamas]

OK so did the Supreme Court say that all outgoing presidents can try a coup since they have immunity for that sort a thing?

[Valmy]

OK so did the Supreme Court say that all outgoing presidents can try a coup since they have immunity for that sort a thing?

Well that's the headline, but I will wait for Minsky to explain.

I suspect the actual decision is more narrow than that, and designed in such a way to specifically protect Trump and not much farther, but we will see.

[Josquius]

Amnesty international are pretty renowned enough to be experts in their own right.

The red cross say the same https://www.redcross.org.uk/stories/migration-and-displacement/refugees-and-asylum-seekers/six-things-you-need-to-know-about-refugees-and-asylum-seekers

This isn't really something controversial.

[Iormlund]

Amnesty international are pretty renowned enough to be experts in their own right.

They are also pretty renowned for sucking Putin's dick and their love of terrorists.

[Tamas]

Justice Sotomayor says president 'is now a king above the law' in dissent
The three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, all dissented from the majority opinion.

Writing in her dissent, Sotomayor said:

The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.

She warned of the "stark" long-term consequences of today's decision, noting that the court had effectively created a "law free zone" around the president.

This new official-acts immunity now 'lies about like a loaded weapon' for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation.

Sotomayor continued:

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. 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.

Maybe Biden should get rid of Trump using this.

[crazy canuck]

OK so did the Supreme Court say that all outgoing presidents can try a coup since they have immunity for that sort a thing?

Well that's the headline, but I will wait for Minsky to explain.

I suspect the actual decision is more narrow than that, and designed in such a way to specifically protect Trump and not much farther, but we will see.

There is a distinction between private and public acts.  And that is what the trial is now going to be about.

[grumbler]

Nowhere does Amnesty International or the Red Cross state that an asylum seeker is not a refugee.  Asylum seekers are refugees, as are those to whom asylum has been granted.  They cease being refugees when they can again enjoy the protection of the law in the country from which they fled, or when they gain citizenship in the country of refuge.

[Iormlund]

Ok, so I read the first pages of the opinion, and this is absolutely nuts:

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire
into the President's motives.

[The Minsky Moment]

OK so did the Supreme Court say that all outgoing presidents can try a coup since they have immunity for that sort a thing?

Yes that is what the opinion literally holds.

The President has the constitutional authority to direct the military and the Supreme Court's holding is that any Presidential act made within the scope of his "preclusive and conclusive" constitutional authority is absolutely immune, regardless of its purpose.  Thus, anything the President orders to military to do is absolutely immune from prosecution.

I wish I could say I was overstating this holding or that there is some missing nuance, but there isn't.  The that the dissenting opinions raise this very concern. And while the majority responds to many points made by the dissent, they pointedly don't respond to those ones, which only reinforces the conclusion that that result is not a bug, but WAD.

[Valmy]

So if the President wanted to send in the Army to attack Congress, a la Boris Yeltsin in 1993, that is Constitutional? Or least we couldn't prosecute the President for that?

I mean...surely not 

[PJL]

OK so did the Supreme Court say that all outgoing presidents can try a coup since they have immunity for that sort a thing?

Yes that is what the opinion literally holds.

The President has the constitutional authority to direct the military and the Supreme Court's holding is that any Presidential act made within the scope of his "preclusive and conclusive" constitutional authority is absolutely immune, regardless of its purpose.  Thus, anything the President orders to military to do is absolutely immune from prosecution.

I wish I could say I was overstating this holding or that there is some missing nuance, but there isn't.  The that the dissenting opinions raise this very concern. And while the majority responds to many points made by the dissent, they pointedly don't respond to those ones, which only reinforces the conclusion that that result is not a bug, but WAD.

So is this effectively the equivalent of the Enabling Act? Is democracy in the USA now dead?