Right, it’s not about whether they are America’s friend or foe, it’s only about their relationship with Trump. And unfortunately, Trump seems to be better at relating to dictators.

And it probably doesn’t help that democratically elected leaders from countries that have longstanding relationships with the US tend to expect America to live up to it’s obligations. They aren’t coming in and kissing the ring in exchange for favors, they’re putting the burden on the president to, you know, do his fucking job. “What’s that, Ukraine wants the defense funding that congress allocated for them? Well what will they do for me?”

Trump is an idiot and a coward. He doesn’t give a shit about global security, he doesn’t get that abandoning allies only makes us look weak and unreliable, and he has no principles which could compel him to take a stand. He will decide things based on his own emotions and ego, doing whatever he thinks makes him look good. And his idea of looking good is less about being a leader or statesman and more about pretending to be a tough guy that gets respect by rewarding friends and punishing enemies.

Remember, this is the guy who, when faced with a choice between showing leadership in the face of a pandemic or downplaying the disease so that it wouldn’t be associated with him, went with downplaying the disease. If he can’t be trusted to make the right choice in a conflict between a virus and humanity, why would we ever expect him to make the tough call to defend an ally in a difficult conflict.

Honestly, I think if Trump had been president in 1941, he would have downplayed the significance of Pearl Harbor and would have used it as an excuse to stop aid to our allies. But I’m sure he’d still be all for internment, it’s very much his style.

Well shit, I’m open to being his vice president too. Why wouldn’t anyone take the job? Now that being president surrounds you with a bubble of legal immunity, the vice president is free to grant himself a good old fashioned Klingon promotion. Stab him in the neck with a pen, sign some papers with his blood in an official act, and all the evidence is inadmissible.

If you have a majority on the court that takes this disastrous decision as seriously as they should and are ready to overturn it, then it’s fairly easy to get the case to happen. You just need to have a sitting president tell the justice department to bring a case against him. Doesn’t have to be for anything big, just literally any criminal offense that can be brought to trial and appealed. He can even appeal directly to the supreme court and ask that they expedite the appeal. They hear the appeal, issue a ruling, and the precedent is gone.

This from the same legal team that successfully argued that the president is above the law, including having the ability to assassinate his political opponents.

Saving time by reusing the same headline week after week.

There’s only two routes to getting this undone. One is a constitutional amendment, the other is for the Court to get several justices who are eager to overturn this decision, and then bring a case to trial specifically to address this issue.

I can’t think of an amendment that would likely have a broader appeal than one that says presidents aren’t kings and aren’t above the law. But even so, I can’t see it getting passed any time soon, given the overwhelming bipartisan support it would need. Personally, I’d like to see this done anyway, if only so that we could also include a provision stating that a president can’t pardon himself, and can’t pardon crimes that he ordered.

By comparison, it seems a lot easier to change the balance on the court, since one way or another it will be changed over time. And assuming we reach a point where we can be confident that the majority is ready to completely erase this ruling, then you just need to bring a case against a former president.

One could wait for such a case to arise organically, but that’s leaving a lot to chance. You need a former president to have allegedly committed a crime, you need a evidence enough to bring a case, you need to go through the appeals process, they need to try to use presidential immunity, and then it needs to be taken up by the Supreme Court. Any number of things could go wrong, and there could be political fallout. If there’s a serious enough situation that requires this, by all means, go after them and make this an issue in the case so that it has to get appealed. Worst case scenario, they get away with something they would have gotten away with anyway.

Personally, if I were president and had shifted the balance of the court back to one that respects the rule of law, I’d probably tell the justice department to bring a case against me, appeal to the Supreme Court, ask that they expedite the appeal, and then they can completely reverse this insane precedent. It would all be contrived, but that’s hardly anything new. I would make sure that anyone I appointed to the Court was down with a plan like this, If they won’t do that much to safeguard the country, the constitution, and rule of law, they can’t be trusted with the responsibility of being on the Supreme Court.

The next steps would be ordering the justice department to prosecute him, going to court, and appealing all the way to the new Supreme Court so they can overturn the precedent. Which would require either moving very quickly or preventing the other side from taking power, one way or the other.

Of course, by then pandora’s box is open. As long as someone is willing to follow those kinds of orders, nothing would prevent the next president from doing the same thing. It’s a slippery slope not unlike the one that caused Rome to go from being a republic that viewed regicide as a fundamental virtue to an empire that would persecute groups for denying the divinity of the emperor.

This decision so blatantly ignores the constitution, history, tradition, case law, and all available evidence, that I have to question why they even bothered writing such a long decision. They might as well have just said “Fuck it, we say Trump is immune. Eat shit America, we can do whatever we want.”

Fucking insanity.

Civil immunity makes sense because anyone can sue anyone for anything at anytime, and allowing people to sue the president for official acts would leave him vulnerable to a nonstop barrage of lawsuits. Crime doesn’t work that way. The only way the president should be facing criminal prosecution is if he’s breaking the fucking law. That’s kind of the opposite of what the president is supposed to be doing. You know, faithfully executing the laws and all that. If a presidential action violates the law, it can’t really have the legitimacy that’s being presumed for all official acts here, because by definition it violates his official duties under the constitution.

Now, I would never suggest that a sitting president order the unlawful detention or summary execution of political opponents and/or corrupt justices. But I might suggest that, in the interest of national security, that he order intelligence agencies to troll through communications records, financial records, etc. to search for signs of treason and corruption at the hands of foreign powers. And if that search should happen to find evidence of any kind of illegal activity among his political opponents or on the Court, well…

France on Sunday took a step closer to delivering what was once seen as an unthinkable nightmare: a far-right government taking power in Paris for the first time.

Well… the first time in a while. And just as the last time was exiting living memory.

Unfortunately, the people who need to hear this message will never read this.