politics
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
view the rest of the comments
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.
Did you read the fucking dissent? That's a sitting SC Justice saying that quote, not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller:
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!)
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.
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.
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.
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+?
Whoever disagrees on anything with Trump or is too weak to defend themselves when he needs a scapegoat for his failures.
Leftists.
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.
Yeah, how's that been working out so far?
As well as one might imagine!
Question for you: was this ruling incorrect? If so, how do you square that with the majority of justices ruling that way? Or do you as a fellow armchair ianal basement dweller get special privileges when it comes to your legal opinions vs that if scotus judges?
All I'm saying is that if I'm POTUS and I'm considering a questionable "official act" i know who I'm going to to clear it first.
Yes. The decision is fundamentally flawed and if the US survives this, it will be discussed in law reviews for decades to come.
Are you presuming that a reactionary majority in SCOTUS ruling something squares with "correct"? Setting that aside for a second, I'll answer it by saying their decision makes it legal for the president to commit crimes in an official capacity, and that decision is wholesale incorrect by virtually any standard other than "Conservative Party go Brrrrr". Say that out loud a few times: "it's legal for the President to commit crimes in an official capacity". This is defacto opening to kingship / authoritarianism. If you go read the entire constitution (it's pretty short) and you'll recognize that these same 6 jurists cannot back this decision up with anything remotely resembling what the constitution says. It goes against all of the language holding our government officials accountable to the law. So yes... I square it quite easily by saying that all 6 of the majority decision jurists are wrong and just because it's a majority doesn't make them right.
This argument doesn't go as hard as you think. My whole point centered around the fact that you shouldn't pay attention to me, but that you should pay attention to the dissent WITHIN THE SUPREME COURT itself. My opinion here truly doesn't matter (which I suppose negates my first to responses above, but you asked...) but Sotomayor's legal opinion surely matters. That was my point.
The SC put it on the lower courts, which means any challenge to "what's an official act" will just come back to the SC upon appeal. The conservative majority can choose to hear or not and if they do, hear any challenge, they can rule along party lines in favor. Sotomayor is saying, rightly, that other than a mild delay, this is effectively a rubber stamp for the President to commit any crime while in office. Further, my argument is that if Trump gains office again, he won't bother clearing anything - he'll go straight into persecuting anyone he deems disloyal. He's already saying Kinzinger and Biden and Liz Cheney should meet a military tribunal (though there is absolutely zero jurisdiction). In any authoritarian country, this means at least life imprisonment if it doesn't mean a firing squad. And he can do it and THEN see what the SC says. He's not going to clear anything because he knows they are in his pocket, and he can use their own decision to eliminate them if they don't play ball on ruling what is official or not. The SC may think they have power right now, but take this forward a year from "First day dictator Donny" and tell me the Supreme Court can do shit? They've created their own monster.
Yeah, well, it sounded a whole lot more like you were attacking me and my opinion. You could have absolutely made this point without cursing and without the whole "basement dweller" part. I think we all understand that Sotomayor is a SCOTUS justice.
It’s horrendously incorrect. Listen to the dissenting justices, or constitutional scholars like Luttig and Tribe. Basically anyone who’s serious and not a craven Trump crony.
So, we're allowed to disagree with scotus judges without being basement dwellers? I agree, both with that and your conclusion that it was the wrong ruling.
It's just funny that I was mercilessly downvoted for pointing this out.
BTW, I never called you this. I was making an arbitrary comparison to any number of us having a conversation about the ruling and saying "not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller" compared to "a sitting SCOTUS jurist who dissented" in terms of "we better pay attention"
I think you were downvoted because your post implies you agree with the majority. You have clarified it by saying:
Probably should have started with that.
I responded more directly since your ire seems to be pointed at me.
I did. At least pretty clearly when I said they were crowning themselves king rather than the POTUS king. Apparently, tho, I have to say I disagree with the ruling in every post or posters will assume that any disagreement with someone who claims the ruling is wrong must mean I think the ruling is correct. I guess I should have known this already tho.
"Did you read the fucking dissent? That’s a sitting SC Justice saying that quote, not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller:"
Funny to read you say my post, which doesn't even remotely imply that I think the ruling was correct, implies that. . .but when you respond to my point, saying it is wrong, and throwing in "not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller," that doesn't imply you think that about me.
You're projecting here, as you were the one cursing at me and insulting people. I said nothing about you and I'm not really irked at all; I understand fully how partisan the average poster is and that any dissent is going to get piled on.
Apologies if it came off that way. Truly meant that as a generalization and pretty much include myself in the snark if it matters at this point...
Apology accepted. I also apologize for snarking back. Lol
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.
fascism has never been reasonable, or it's self consistent.
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.
So the POTUS gets to pick his jury, which Trump did.
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!
Then why did they send the decision back to lower court to decide what “official “ acts are?
So that they can be appealed to in any specific case and decide for themselves.
So, if Trump does an official act, and assasinates all the SC justices, who decides then?
If a president is killing off supremes, we’re well past following rules, so that’s anyone’s guess.