Federal judges can deputize people and make them US Marshals to execute warrants. The federal judges could also send people to arrest Trump. They don’t have the balls to do it, but its legal.
The federal judges could also send people to arrest Trump.
No, they cannot, because federal authorities won’t prosecute a sitting US President. Only the House, by way of Impeachment, and the Senate, by way of conviction can anything be done about Trump now.
Additionally, SCOTUS gave the President total immunity when it comes to “official actions” which is not at all defined in any capacity, so the interpretation is up in the air. All’s Trump has to do is argue that these are official actions and nothing can feasibly be done.
So he demands a sitting supreme court justice be arrested and they are. It goes to court and its found Trump can’t do that. The judge is released, and nothing happens to Trump at all. So he tries again. And again. And again. Until he’s finally successful.
Roe v. Wade was considered the law of the land and no one ever thought it could ever be overturned. Republicans tried for over 50 years to get it reversed which everyone agreed was a fools errand. And then they did… Just because something can’t happen doesn’t mean it really can’t happen.
First off, you literally started an argument explaining that something can’t happen, then ended it by saying that something that can’t happen can happen, and that hurts my brain a bit.
Secondly, one reason reason a judge can deputize people is for cases where the executive branch or law enforcement has gone rogue and they need to enforce the law outside of the regular channels.
Third, the whole “Can’t arrest or charge a sitting President for any crime” thing isn’t a law, but a justice department policy. Deputized law enforcement and prosecutors from outside of the justice department wouldn’t be bound by that policy.
That is a DoJ POLICY, not a law, nor is it in the Constitution. It has never really been tested, everybody has just gone along with it all these years. SCOTUS gave the president immunity, but with a loophole: it has to be part of his presidential duties. It could be argued that arresting opponents for doing their Constitutionally-mandated jobs is NOT within the President’s duties, and therefore he would not be immune. Same with doing things like ordering the military to fire on American protesters exercising their 1st Amendment rights. It will be up to SCOTUS to decide, and they’ve already shown that they wont rubber-stamp his nonsense.
If he starts arresting SCOTUS justices, they arent likely to find in his favor for ANYTHING.
Policies inform how the law and system works. The DOJ can change that policy, but since it is essentially under the control of the sitting president, that won’t happen.
I think you misunderstand the power dynamic, the president controls the military and if he starts to arrest SCOTUS justices, I don’t think the SCOTUS rulings will matter any more, they won’t have any way to enforce their rulings that will stand up to the de facto power the president has.
The SCOTUS rulings are already being ignored by this administration on other decisions that were made by them, so you could say we’re already past that.
Supreme Courts around the world have found all sorts of ways of exercising power. They can deputize citizen volunteers to serve as temporary court enforcers. They can outright order the military to stand down and arrest the president. Hell, they could dig into the ancient tradition and declare the president an outlaw - literally outside the protection of the law, making it legal for anyone to straight-up kill the guy.
Federal judges can deputize people and make them US Marshals to execute warrants. The federal judges could also send people to arrest Trump. They don’t have the balls to do it, but its legal.
No, they cannot, because federal authorities won’t prosecute a sitting US President. Only the House, by way of Impeachment, and the Senate, by way of conviction can anything be done about Trump now.
Additionally, SCOTUS gave the President total immunity when it comes to “official actions” which is not at all defined in any capacity, so the interpretation is up in the air. All’s Trump has to do is argue that these are official actions and nothing can feasibly be done.
So he demands a sitting supreme court justice be arrested and they are. It goes to court and its found Trump can’t do that. The judge is released, and nothing happens to Trump at all. So he tries again. And again. And again. Until he’s finally successful.
Roe v. Wade was considered the law of the land and no one ever thought it could ever be overturned. Republicans tried for over 50 years to get it reversed which everyone agreed was a fools errand. And then they did… Just because something can’t happen doesn’t mean it really can’t happen.
3 things:
First off, you literally started an argument explaining that something can’t happen, then ended it by saying that something that can’t happen can happen, and that hurts my brain a bit.
Secondly, one reason reason a judge can deputize people is for cases where the executive branch or law enforcement has gone rogue and they need to enforce the law outside of the regular channels.
Third, the whole “Can’t arrest or charge a sitting President for any crime” thing isn’t a law, but a justice department policy. Deputized law enforcement and prosecutors from outside of the justice department wouldn’t be bound by that policy.
It’s not even a policy, it’s a literal post it note memo with no known author.
only Congress has that authority through impeachment, a sitting president is immune to indictment
That is a DoJ POLICY, not a law, nor is it in the Constitution. It has never really been tested, everybody has just gone along with it all these years. SCOTUS gave the president immunity, but with a loophole: it has to be part of his presidential duties. It could be argued that arresting opponents for doing their Constitutionally-mandated jobs is NOT within the President’s duties, and therefore he would not be immune. Same with doing things like ordering the military to fire on American protesters exercising their 1st Amendment rights. It will be up to SCOTUS to decide, and they’ve already shown that they wont rubber-stamp his nonsense.
If he starts arresting SCOTUS justices, they arent likely to find in his favor for ANYTHING.
Policies inform how the law and system works. The DOJ can change that policy, but since it is essentially under the control of the sitting president, that won’t happen.
I think you misunderstand the power dynamic, the president controls the military and if he starts to arrest SCOTUS justices, I don’t think the SCOTUS rulings will matter any more, they won’t have any way to enforce their rulings that will stand up to the de facto power the president has.
The SCOTUS rulings are already being ignored by this administration on other decisions that were made by them, so you could say we’re already past that.
Supreme Courts around the world have found all sorts of ways of exercising power. They can deputize citizen volunteers to serve as temporary court enforcers. They can outright order the military to stand down and arrest the president. Hell, they could dig into the ancient tradition and declare the president an outlaw - literally outside the protection of the law, making it legal for anyone to straight-up kill the guy.