177
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 04 Jul 2024
177 points (97.8% liked)
politics
19088 readers
1707 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I dunno...
You could well be right, but I have a hard time believing that any court - even this grotesquely corrupt one - would attempt such rulings.
So far, while obviously a significant threat, their immunity rulings have actually been broadly in line with established precedent. And they specifically stated that the precise definition of an "official act" was something that was going to have to be worked out in future rulings.
Even with as cynical as I am, I find it hard to believe that they actually intend to rule that anything that might be done in the midst of carrying out some entirely and completely unrelated official act is afforded the same protection as that official act. That would rather obviously make it so that the president could, for instance, pause in the middle of signing a bill and do literally anything - absolutely anything at all - and be entirely immune from any and all consequences.
Yes - it is possible that they'll rule that way, but again, even as cynical as I am, I can't imagine that they actually will, if for no other reason than that that would empower the president to order the summary execution of all Supreme Court justices.
gestures broadly
Have you been paying attention lately?
Here's the problem. Attempting to prosecute someone based on that logic borders on entrapment. Based on the way the ruling is worded, Trump could call Seal Team 6 tomorrow and "tell them to take out . Oh, and by the way, take out Dolly Parton on the way there. " , and nobody could do anything about it. Since he was in the midst of carrying out an official duty, he can't even be asked about the contents of the phone call, let alone if he ordered them to take out Dolly Parton. " Sure, the Supreme Court may very well rule that it was not an official act....years from now, after it's made its way through the rest of the court system. But you can't go back and charge someone with a crime for committing an act that was perfectly legal when it was committed. And right now, based on the wording of the Supreme Court ruling, the President would be absolutely immune from even being investigated for it, let alone prosecuted -- until they say otherwise. Which would be fine for whoever is #2 on Trump's hit list, but it would still suck to be Dolly Parton.
That's pretty much exactly what they said would happen. They spelled it out in great detail. If the President is engaging in an official act, he cannot be investigated for it, and the act and anything related to it cannot be used as evidence against him, even if it's evidence of an unrelated crime. Which means yes, right now he can literally pause in the middle of signing a bill, order the military to nuke Wisconsin because he hates cheese, finish signing the bill, and nobody can touch him.