What could Joe Biden do, with full immunity, at this time?

[kentuck]

As an official act, could he request the Justice Department to immediately charge everyone, including the present President-elect, to be prosecuted for their attack upon our Constitution and our nation's Capitol on January 6th, 2021?

Could he call for their immediate arrest?

What would it cost him? The House, Senate, and Supreme Court are already gone?

if the alternative is to do nothing, what could Joe Biden do at this moment with the Supreme Court ruling that gives the President immunity for all "official acts"?

[MineralMan]

1. What immunity? That's all in the control of SCOTUS.

What makes you think that Biden can do anything he wants? It's simply not true. SCOTUS is not in rational hands right now. Biden knows that. I know that. You apparently do not know that.

Biden's options are limited. Truly they are.

[kentuck]

5. Yes. Only Trump's actions will be "official"...

There is nothing that Biden can do that the Supreme Court would call "official"?

So, why not force them to make a ruling?

[MineralMan]

7. There's some danger there, I'm afraid.

But, then, there's some danger everywhere right now.

[CommonHumanity]

8. Why be dismissive/superior? I don't understand

Why did you respond to the poster the way you did, as in "You apparently do not know that". It is dismissive and superior. I know from your other posts that you're a good and caring person, but there is no need to respond that way to a fellow poster with good intentions. It is demoralizing and discourages people from posting. My honest question is why? It doesn't help at all.

[MineralMan]

9. Because it's a dangerous conclusion to draw, and is based

on a misconception that has been debunked here many times.

Why do I say anything I say here? I act independently from almost everything here. I speak my mind, regardless of whom I'm addressing.

People are saying many things that are not true, based on their fear of what is true. When they say something that is completely incorrect, I will always speak up in no uncertain terms.

As for being "superior" or "dismissive," I'll admit to being dismissive of ideas that are simply not correct or feasible. I am not superior. I am just another DUer with the experience I have gained over some 60-something years of being politically active.

[CommonHumanity]

15. I beg to differ

Thank you for addressing my question. I maintain that you can say all you said without being dismissive. I am in the same age range with equal years political background and I don't think age or experience confer the right to be dismissive. In think ideas are be heard more easily with mutual respect. I'll drop it of course since what I've said doesn't resonate, but I wanted to bring the issue to light and respectfully say that I think it is unnecessary and unhelpful.

[MineralMan]

16. You're welcome to your opinion of me.

Everyone is. Kentuck is a long-time DUer with over 100,000 posts. I am also a long-time DUer, with over 100,000 posts. We know each other. Kentuck speaks frankly, and so do I.

Not everyone here likes me. I don't like every DUer, either. I respect more DUers than I agree with. I have very thick skin.

I'm afraid I don't know anything about you. Perhaps I'll learn more over time as you provide more content here.

[PJMcK]

17. Your directness is why I follow you

Although I often agree with your opinions, I always admire and respect your blunt expressions.

Keep it up!

PS- I, too, have pretty thick skin, especially online.

[bigtree]

2. he doesn't have 'full immunity'

...an abhorrent concept afforded to kings and dictators.

We have a SC ruling limited to Trump which intends to keep him from prosecution by arbitrarily fitting the judgment to suit him, not any Democrat or Democratic presidency.

With the same SC still firmly in place, it should be understood that no ruling affecting Trump in an significant way is going to get past their ultimate judgment.

Conversely, it should be obvious that the same court will bend over backward to enforce any penalty against Biden or other Democrats.

Pay attention to the game.

[kentuck]

6. I think the wording was for the "president" to have immunity.....not the president-elect.

As I recall?

[Zeitghost]

3. We keep asking

And the answer is still: Immunity is not power, it is a get out of jail free card. It does not allow the President to do anything above and beyond their power as listed in the Constitution. It just keeps them out of jail if they cross a legal line while exercising those powers.

Anything illegal or not defined as a power of the office will be struck down.

[Jersey Devil]

4. He can commit crimes if they are "official acts"

What crimes do you want him to commit?

[Igel]

10. Apart from malinformational headlines,

there were three classes of acts in that decision.

1. Things that were clearly within the "core" duties as outlined by the Constitution (or statutory law) as the prerogative of the President are covered by immunity. Those can't be touched, what court can punish something that's authorized clearly by the Constitution or by statute?

2. Things that are "presumptively" covered by immunity, things that are blurry and fuzzy when it comes to comparison with "clearly"--and reasonable people can disagree over reasonably. Presumptive immunity doesn't mean "absolute immunity". It means that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to show that those acts are not covered by being clearly included among acts that the Constitution or a statute grants the President authority to do. Think of this as the "immunity" parallel to "presumptive innocence" when you're put on criminal trial after an allegation or "indictment" is filed against you. Presumptive innocence =/= "always innocent."

3. Things that are clearly not Constitutional or authorized by statute. Rape? I missed that when I taught Constitution and amendments as part of a government course. Robbing a bank? Only if authorized to seize the bank's assets under some federal statute or as reasonably implied by regulation interpreting statute.

There you go. Anything else you've read about this that was published more than 48 hours after the SCOTUS opinion was published can be called not "information" or "misinformation" but "disinformation."

[usonian]

11. Suggestions: JOE, ARE YOU READING THIS?

• Give Ukraine what it needs to demolish Putin ASAP.
Cut off the head of the snake.

• Change all the ciphers and nuclear codes AND TAKE THEM HOME.

• Do everything imaginable to protect agents and assets before they are doxxed by Caligula for bitcoin.

These are urgent national security matters, and not one bit imaginary.

EDIT TO ADD: This is my 13,666th post.
It's LUCKY.

[Polybius]

12. That would cause a Civil War

And one that we would surely lose.

[Sympthsical]

13. Immunity is not authority

Not only can a President not order things not within their constitutional powers, no one in government would be obligated to obey an unlawful order.

Presidents cannot order courts to do a single thing. Even if, in this fantasy, the DOJ started charging everyone willy nilly, courts would toss it all immediately.

And then what? How would the President force courts to entertain this stuff? Send in the military?

Where is the stop on this train of fantastical thought?

[TheKentuckian]

14. Calling is nothing. Immunity conveys no additional authority

[cpamomfromtexas]

18. I sent him a letter with several suggestions

One is allow military widows to remarry without penalty or loss of benefits.

[tritsofme]

19. I wish we could cut out this ridiculous dictator porn, it got pathetic a while ago.