147
Supreme Court agrees to quick review of Trump’s presidential immunity claim
(www.tucsonsentinel.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
147 points (98.7% liked)
News
23296 readers
2501 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Blows my mind how this isn't just the most cut and dry logical answer ever.
Is the president immune from prosecution under the law? No. No one is. That's the point of the laws. If a leader is fully immune they are a dictator.
And fuck it, even if you're insane and think Trump would be a good King of the US, if this gets passed then there's no precedent stopping Biden saying at the end of his term "no, I'm staying, screw you". That is terrible regardless of your political standing.
Screw waiting for an election. If the SC states that a sitting President is immune from law, the current President should simply point this out to everybody (so we're clear here) and cancel the upcoming election. Leave plenty of time for the SC to backpedal so the elections actually do happen, but then Trump can be prosecuted.
Or even better, the sitting President can start hunting Supreme Court Justices for sport.
You know, since there's no law saying he can't.
Well damn if that's the new job expectation then I really think the president is too old for duty. I vote for The Rock.
Well, if the President is immune then he can always appoint a SCOTUS Hunter cabinet position.
Deepfake Biden into one of the adaptations of The Most Dangerous Game and we'll have a movie night
If it's going to be anyone, it's gotta be King Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho.
I mean, if we're gonna have a king at all, I'd vote Charles III over this POS. And that's saying something.
Maybe we could just rescind our independence. Our problems become shared problems. Nothing really improves, but it becomes more socially acceptable for me and the boys to cry into pints every night.
It's indeed a bit crazy but it highlights a need we have in legislation to properly spell out enforcement. Gone are the days when it was enough to have a gentleman's agreement to report and act on certain transgressions. Now, sadly, the default action is to ignore and deny until the issue goes away and it works far too often.
Our current law system also vastly benefits those who can spend millions on lawyers.