481
Karoline Leavitt boasts Trump wouldn’t hesitate to arrest SCOTUS justices
(www.thedailybeast.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
481 points (98.6% liked)
politics
23250 readers
2948 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.