this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
842 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2333 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 137 points 4 months ago (6 children)

People are getting this all wrong.

They haven't crowned the POTUS as king. They were very clear that non-official acts are not covered. They've crowned themselves, the ones who get to determine what is and what is not an "official act" the kings.

[–] massacre@lemmy.world 94 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

Did you read the fucking dissent? That's a sitting SC Justice saying that quote, not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller:

“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,” Sotomayor wrote.

If one of the dissenting justices thinks it likely, we better pay attention. The whole "They were very clear that non-official acts are not covered." is a pillar built on sinking sand - what defines non-official becomes subjective real fast. Biden could assassinate every conservative justice on SCOTUS and get his own in there to make it all legal. Threats of the same to any in congress who won't play ball.

And if someone can't imagine Biden doing it (I can't), I'm thinking that there are quite a few citizens who believe Trump abso-fucking-lutely would pull that shit. With a majority on SCOTUS already he could just start going after political rivals and keep SCOTUS themselves in check with threats of the same. If SCOTUS has done anything they've painted themselves in a corner and only Congress can unfuck us with impeachment (as unlikely as that seems!)

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 29 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I read their point as being "because official acts are not defined and they're the ultimate deciders, the Court can provide or withhold this immunity at will". Turns out killing Republicans is not an official act and killing Democrats is.

[–] Rnet1234@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Sure, but the court doesn't actually have any enforcement mechanism - that's all held by the executive. Like, a president who orders the military to assassinate a political rival is not gonna wait for multiple months of trial and go 'oh OK I guess that wasn't an official act off to jail I go'. They can just intimidate the judges. The Republicans are counting on any Democratic president not doing that, and are probably right.

[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

that’s all held by the executive

From now on, that'll all be handled by the most rabid capitol rioters. If they demonstrate their loyalty by murdering undesirable political figures, the president will throw around pardons like it's his main competence.

[–] mdk_@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

All that is left than is to MAGA and consolidate Trumps power. Just look into https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives to see what will happen in the not so distant future.

The rioters will be purged after the power grab instead of the SA. They absolutely stand alone after Trump drops them faster than he can say Covfefe. With the judicative and executive under his boot, there is nothing left inside the USA to fight against. So any guesses what the first target will be after the rioters and LGBTQIA+?

[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Whoever disagrees on anything with Trump or is too weak to defend themselves when he needs a scapegoat for his failures.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

This ruling is about after leaving office, when they don't have the power anymore. Biden is still covered under the Justice Department policy that a sitting president can't be prosecuted, but presumably the fear of being prosecuted after leaving would help restrain the worst and most blatant violations.

[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

and only Congress can unfuck us with impeachment

Yeah, how's that been working out so far?

[–] massacre@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

As well as one might imagine!

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 36 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Strong incentive to not step down if you can just keep being a crook. Watch how quick the republicans start to argue over what is “official” and what isn’t depending on who is president.

[–] orrk@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

fascism has never been reasonable, or it's self consistent.

[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago

And they're going to quickly find out how much that illusion of power is worth when they try to contain or cross whatever right-wing fascist they help empower.

These idiots think their power structure isn't going to be gutted like some kind of Mortal Combat move as soon as it is convenient for the king of the US to do so. They have no enforcement of their own, the other branches barely have to listen to them as it is, and by the time whatever CIA maga thug clubs them to death in their bed it's going to be too late for them to render a judgement on whether it's an official act. They'll be dead and replaced with someone who values their life more.

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

So the POTUS gets to pick his jury, which Trump did.

[–] Veneroso@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

So let's say, hypothetically.

The president thought that people shouldn't eat chocolate ice cream. It's anti-american.

And "for the good of the country" anyone who eats chocolate ice cream has to be isolated from the rest of society.

That's not an official act. It's not really on the periphery of official acts.

But because definitionally anything that, at the president's sole discretion, is "in the best interest of the United States" is now argued as an official act.

Biden likes vanilla ice cream.
But he isn't going to detain you for unamerican activities if you prefer chocolate ice cream.

Choose freedom! Choose chocolate ice cream!

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Then why did they send the decision back to lower court to decide what “official “ acts are?

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So that they can be appealed to in any specific case and decide for themselves.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So, if Trump does an official act, and assasinates all the SC justices, who decides then?

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 months ago

If a president is killing off supremes, we’re well past following rules, so that’s anyone’s guess.