this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
509 points (94.7% liked)

politics

19072 readers
5139 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
 

This stupid topic again

But sure

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 30 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I love how you skip the part where Congress blocked everything the SCotUS didn't. That's so efficient.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There are a LOT of things he could have done in a lot of areas that require neither Congress nor the courts.

Not to mention, he was so goddamn focused on “reaching across the aisle” that he picked a guy for AG that clearly doesn’t have a strong interest in, you know, preventing the fascists from winning, because he’s in the same party as the fascists.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

There are a LOT of things he could have done in a lot of areas that require neither Congress nor the courts.

Go on

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Well he has absolute immunity now. Could hang them all on the Whitehouse lawn. /s

[–] tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

/s ?

The President using the armed forces to assassinate a political rival would be immune to prosecution under this ruling.

A President's use of the military is a power granted to them under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. In order to prosecute for this hypothetical assassination, they would first need to prove that providing orders as Commander in Chief was somehow an unofficial act.

This is one of the specific examples Sotomayor listed in her dissenting opinion on this ruling.

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It's not like they're consistent.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

That's why if Biden were to ever use this power, he'd have to go after SCOTUS first.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It’s not like they’re consistent.

[–] tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.

Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.

The President's authority as Commander in Chief is a core constitutional power, as granted in Article II, Section 2. This example is not hyperbolic.