Sorry if this is not the proper community for this question. Please let me know if I should post this question elsewhere.
So like, I’m not trying to be hyperbolic or jump on some conspiracy theory crap, but this seems like very troubling news to me. My entire life, I’ve been under the impression that no one is technically/officially above the law in the US, especially the president. I thought that was a hard consensus among Americans regardless of party. Now, SCOTUS just made the POTUS immune to criminal liability.
The president can personally violate any law without legal consequences. They also already have the ability to pardon anyone else for federal violations. The POTUS can literally threaten anyone now. They can assassinate anyone. They can order anyone to assassinate anyone, then pardon them. It may even grant complete immunity from state laws because if anyone tries to hold the POTUS accountable, then they can be assassinated too. This is some Putin-level dictator stuff.
I feel like this is unbelievable and acknowledge that I may be wayyy off. Am I misunderstanding something?? Do I need to calm down?
All this shit is literally straight out of the Putin playbook. Take control of the courts, take control of what is legal, take control of elections. Republicans were always too dumb and incompetent to be anything but pawns of a better organized evil.
Fascism isn’t some genius-brained thing, it’s just how authoritarians operate, and Putin didn’t invent it.
US politics has always been deeply corrupt, and now it is losing even more of its veneer of legitimacy, which means it’s crumbled that much more.
The Russians aren’t the cause of your woes. Actually if you look at what happened with the neoliberal shock doctrine and the fall of the USSR, the US is way more responsible for Putin than the other way around.
That’s correct, and it doesn’t discount that authoritarianism is authoritarianism. Notwithstanding, people are so indoctrinated with American exceptionalism and USA most free country in the world, we don’t even bother to learn about what Greg Palast termed vulture capitalism and tactics used. Operation Paperclip is heavily whitewashed as “the best and brightest,” leaving out the noun being described, Nazis.
We’re in real trouble and the only ones who can save us from ourselves is ourselves. It will be interesting to see if it will be done before the climate extinction.
Can’t Biden just have a reaper drone fire a hellfire missile at Trump? Or am I missing something?
Democrats care more about decorum than the country.
He could but he wont. Trump would definitely do it tho.
The whole Trump presidency was filled with Trump abusing vague powers because when it was written, they assumed that the president wasn’t a asshole.
This new law plus Trump is a cluster fuck.
The problem is, Biden wouldn’t do it, because he is demented and Trump would, because, well he can. So US are already fucked and the EU are probably next (ukraine war). While both sides are bad, I still think the demented guy is the one to vote for.
deleted by creator
They took a torch to your constitution. All for the sake of a very, very evil man.
The heritage foundation has been working on this long before the angry orange was a viable candidate. He is just the current face because he is belligerent enough to follow through on what they want to do and does a bang up job of riling up the conservative base.
If he was out of the picture they would be doing the same things with someone else who wouldn’t be nearly as effective, but they would still be going down the same road.
That’s one of the things that really gets me about all this. This didn’t happen suddenly, but there has never been any actual effort by the opposition party to counter it. They never address the trend in any organized way, and never really raise awareness of it. The closest they get is to fundraise off the threats, but it never translates into action or progress. If anything, they organize to ostracize the few members of their party that do speak forcefully about it.
The worst part is that those who do not understand this will tell you you are insane, catastrophizing, should just focus on your own life, and will get angry at you for really caring… while the ones who do understand, generally just get depressed.
Meanwhile, our political system implodes as we have passed the climate threshold. Rivers in Alaska are running orange as a result of permafrost thawing. That means we are releasing methane now, means its only going to get worse faster.
Thank god I have never wanted and do not have children.
I don’t know why people care. Obama dronestriked an American citizen and nothing happened. Snowden revealed that we are all under mass surveillance and nothing happened. Biden withheld funds from Ukraine to halt an investigation into his son and nothing happened. This ruling just reflects reality.
Biden withheld funds from Ukraine to halt an investigation into his son and nothing happened.
Bit of a refresher as it’s so hard to keep all of the lies straight: Republicans claimed that an FBI informant said that Hunter Biden took a position on the board of Burisma, and the Bidens took a bribe, in return for Joe pressuring Ukraine to fire the government official investigating Burisma. Nobody can produce the evidence, and said government official wasn’t investigating Burisma, after all.
Pres. Trump threatened to withhold funds from Ukraine unless Zelenskyy dug up kompromat on Trump’s political opponents. He was impeached over it. So that happened.
You don’t think this series of events is indicative of corruption?
The CIA also censored references to Shokins book on twitter.
Unrelated but the same people censored the Hunter Biden laptop story and called it Russian disinfo during peak election season. It turned out to be true. 🤔
That is indeed a series of events. Did they ever come up with any evidence linking them in a causal way?
Well is there any evidence?!
The title of the article is literally about the oversight committee demanding communication records as recently as last fall.
Biden is a uniparty member and for all of this smoke he was never properly investigated by the justice department at home or abroad. Every inquiry is some anemic posturing.
Special counsel David Weiss let Hunter Biden’s most egregious financial crimes elapse past the statute of limitations – convenient. Hunter was making millions overseas in Ukraine and moving it through Romania and China. He wasn’t investigated for years until he ended up picking up a gun charge.
Why would an energy company in Ukraine pay Hunter Biden, a crack smoking drug addict, 50-80k a month if not for political access or a quid-pro-quo? Who is “the big guy” in Hunter Bidens email? Why were they trying to give him a plea deal that would absolve him of everything last July? If this were anyone that was not a member of the privileged class they wouldn’t be able to move due to all the investigation instead you are labeled as crazy for thinking this is old fashioned political corruption.
Wikipedia dismisses it as a Russian disinfo conspiracy theory. Where have we heard that before? 🤔
It goes back to my original point these people are above the law.
So… no.
Lol good one it’s like you missed the entire point of my post.
I get the intent of such posts: To confuse and demoralize people with a “both sides” or “they’re all bad” message. I object because they discourage participation in the democratic process and serve authoritarian interests, and in the abstract, truth matters.
No dude, it’s only the most talked about things right now.
Pretty sure we all are at least a little ticked off about it. Except for maybe all the fat oranges magats out there
Can the current president hunt the former president for sport now?
“The most dangerous game”
Yes, have you browsed Lemmy or the general internet the past few days??? How can you still be asking “is anyone else” at this point?
Because they want to make a successful post but don’t actually have anything to add to the conversation.
I don’t get why that would “make a successful post” it’s weird.
And yet here we are.
If my presence is the measure of success we’re using, we’re in way bigger trouble than I had imagined.
I an not even American and even I am pissed at that dumb ruling.
And what is even more annoying is that I read that what is considered an official act is not clear, so a court will need to decide if an act was official or not, and that court will be the SCOTUS.
So they could easily decide that acts Biden performed was not official, but the same acts performed by Trump was official, and invent some crap about context being different in som complex way, so with this ruling they have moved the power from the POTUS to the SCOTUS while POTUS stays the fall guy.
He is only immune from acts that fall within his job description. If you want to criminally charge the president for one of his actions, you will have to convince a judge that the act was outside his job description.
SCOTUS didn’t grant his immunity requests. They sent the case back to the trial court and told them “make sure you specify that this action was outside the scope of his official duties before you make your ruling”.
That’s it. SCOTUS didn’t do him any favors.
You just have to convince a judge that the act was outside of his official duties. Oh, and by the way, the evidence that the act was outside of his official duties is not admissible in court.
Oh, and also by the way, if you somehow manage to convince a trial court judge that the act was outside of his official duties, he can appeal the ruling. All the way back to the Supreme Court.
You just have to convince a judge that the act was outside of his official duties.
Correct. That’s all you have to do.
and by the way, the evidence that the act was outside of his official duties is not admissible in court.
Correct. If the judge rules the act was official, it cannot be used as evidence at trial. On the other hand, when the judge rules it is not an official act, it is admissible. So again, you just have to convince the judge it wasn’t an official act.
What crime is Trump accused of where the only evidence of criminality is an official act? Answer: none. Not one. If he had stuck only to “official” acts, there would be no cause to charge him.
he can appeal the ruling. All the way back to the Supreme Court.
You are not actually suggesting that an accused criminal should not have access to an appeals process, so that criticism is invalid.
That’s a neat little Catch 22 there. You need a ruling that it wasn’t an official act to be able to introduce the evidence that it wasn’t an official act.
That’s a basic admissibility criteria, you are not allowed to just dump a pile of evidence onto the judge’s lap, you have to make a case for each item as to why they’re relevant to the case.
That said, the idea that the president acting in an official capacity wouldn’t be prosecutable for his behaviour is a scary thought in its own right.
No catch-22.
“Admissibility” refers to what the jury can hear, not the judge. The judge gets to hear about the act, and rule on it. If he rules it official, the jury never heard about it. If he rules it unofficial, the prosecutor is free to present it as evidence at trial.
Since you seem a bit more knowledgeable about the subject, what is stopping this scenario:
Lower courts decide they can’t determine what is/isn’t a presidential act, since standards weren’t outlined in the decision. They send it up the courts, where it lands in front of the Supreme Court. And since they set no standards, can determine them on partisan lines.
Since you seem a bit more knowledgeable about the subject
Key word is seem, they’re talking out their ass. Anyone pretending this isn’t a big fucking deal is either an idiot or purposefully lying.
Lower courts decide they can’t determine
That is a nonsensical position. Perhaps a judge determines they are not capable, and recuses themselves or otherwise resigns from the case: the case is reassigned to another judge. But any nitwit can make some sort of decision and support it with some sort of rationale.
The trial court judge cannot “send it up the courts”. They render a decision, and one of the litigants - not the judge - petitions the appellate court, arguing that the trial court’s rationale was wrong.
And since they set no standards, can determine them on partisan lines.
That is, and always has been, a risk in the judicial system established by our constitution. The checks and balances the legislative and judicial branch have against the court are few and weak.
At best, If SCOTUS engages in such shenanigans, such shenanigans will be engaged against SCOTUS: court packing, etc. Ultimately, though, the only real limit on the court is the willingness of We The People to accept its decisions.
Personally, and this is off on a tangent, I think we are due for a fundamental change to the way we empanel the courts, to reduce the politicization of the court. Instead of fixing the size of the court at 9, I think we should ignore the size of the court entirely, and just appoint one new, life-term justice in the first and third year of each presidential term. Any justice who dies or resigns is not replaced. The courts composition shifts on a slow, but steady pace. It does not stagnate due to justices timing their retirements for when a favorable replacement can be made. Nor does it lurch wildly when a justice gets that timing wrong and dies with the wrong party in the white house.
Further, I would adjust the confirmation process. If the president nominates a candidate who has been previously confirmed to a circuit court, no additional confirmation is required. The president thus has a small pool of qualified candidates he can elevate to the court directly, without needing to involve a hostile Senate.
Thank you for the response! 🤙🏼
Ah, I stand corrected on that point. The judge may see the evidence to determine whether an act was unofficial, but the evidence may not be introduced at trial to establish motive.
Total tangent here, but re-reading the ruling has got me wondering where in the Constitution the Originalists found this principle.
Total tangent here, but re-reading the ruling has got me wondering where in the Constitution the Originalists found this principle.
I would say the basic separation of powers. If you can drag the president before the courts for any act taken in office, then the president is not the executive; the court system is.
I had “The USA becomes a Failed State” pencilled in my calendar for November, not for July.
It was actually December 12, 2000
I am not important enough to be targeted but privileged enough to be noticed if I was disappeared.
It is absolutely highly concerning. That said, there’s way too many people who haven’t read the official ruling who are panicking instead of advocating for people to vote to keep Biden in office and prepare another viable candidate for that office once his second term is up. Because the only way to get these idiots off the SCOTUS is to elect non-conservative presidents who can win. And that only happens if people both vote and lobby for what they want. We need better electoral college regulations. We need ranked voting. We need the people to lobby to further limit the government because obviously this is what happens when we don’t.
This ruling, coupled with the whole “Biden is too old, he should step down” BS is exactly the kind of propaganda concoction that will lead to Trump being re-elected in November if we don’t do something.
Do I think this is a way for a President to sanction and enact the murder of political rivals? Under certain circumstances, yes. Do I think the average citizen should be worried about the President signing their death warrant? No.
You have to understand that we’ve had alphabet agencies for a long time and the President literally could use certain pretexts to kill a person if they wanted so long as they did it a specific way. That has not changed just because of this ruling and that’s a big factor people should look at. There’s a reason former Presidents haven’t been prosecuted for drone strikes. Technically they could have been held accountable in a court of law before that. But we’ve known for a long time that in all actuality the law only works that way if you’re poor or if you’re going up against someone else who’s independently wealthy. That’s why Epstein is dead after all. Not because he trafficked young girls. But because his imprisonment put other rich people in danger. Sam Bankmanfried isn’t in prison because he stole money. He’s in prison because he stole from other rich people. Same with Elizabeth Holmes.
When Trump was in office, I need you to understand that the government (the people who guard national secrets) actually considerered him a threat and limited his ability to do damage by not telling him things. We would have been much worse off if they hadn’t.
As a result, the apparatus of the government is not a monolith, just like the apparatus of the military or even just the US as a whole. It’s made up of people. And we’ve limped along this far because we could rely on them not to do certain things. But what Trump was able to get away with by being elected and being in office? This is the fallout of that.
Your statement that the president can “personally” violate any law without criminal liability isn’t correct. Here’s a direct quote from the ruling “Held: 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. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
“As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decision making is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President’s unofficial acts.”
On its face this ruling admits there is a such thing as an unofficial act. The problem is that the SCOTUS should not be allowed to make this decision without checks or balances in place. I.e. if they are making the deduction that a President has immunity, they must cede the determination of such acts that have immunity vs those that don’t to another regulatory body. That’s the disturbing part to me.
This also makes me question what the point is of the impeachment process specifically because of this passage from the same ruling:
“When the President exercises such author ity, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions.”
Technically an impeachment is not a criminal trial. But that passage doesn’t specify the scope. So it could be used to argue that impeachment (while not a criminal proceeding) is an examination of the Presidents actions that potentially would not be allowed. And since the impeachment process is a check and balance for the presidential office, that’s not okay.
Very well thought out reply, thank you. I’m absolutely alarmed, zero people should be above the law, and I think this puts us on a very dangerous path, but if we all collect our heads we can still keep our current president, and maybe work some stuff out from there.
I’m absolutely annoyed with the Biden talk, like no he isn’t my favorite candidate. He’s just not openly calling for overthrowing democracy, so that’s my choice. I don’t worship my leaders, and in a 2 party system I just choose the least worst. He’s the least worst.
I keep thinking back to Carlin. He called it in the 90s. “We don’t have leaders, we have owners, they own you.” Two big things keep me from panic attacks right now. One is that the true owners of the country right now are corporations, and they want stability and you to keep paying, which is oddly comforting in terms of what’s going to happen. The second is that it’s not over yet, we just need to all go out and vote for the least horrible candidate we have! Huzzah!
I’m a bit bothered that people aren’t going to the web to read the ruling in full. They’re relying heavily on dissenting SCOTUS member’s statements and the media. I’m also disheartened at the number of people who don’t know their rights, don’t understand the government’s functions in society, and don’t understand that the constitution is meant to be a living document that restricts what the government can do, not what its citizens can. Of course the number of people who don’t know what’s in the constitution and its amendments is also very high.
It wasn’t that terribly long ago that we didn’t have presidential term limits. There’s absolutely a way forward with further amendments to the constitution which is something we as a people should also lobby for.
Edit: Speak of the devil: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4750735-joe-morelle-amendment-supreme-court-immunity-ruling/
The real problem isn’t what this does right now, it’s how vague and open it is to interpretation. Official acts aren’t described anywhere in it, and they’re explicitly allowing other courts to decide rather than call out things that are obviously wrong for someone with that much power to do. Rather than cracking the door and opening it when needed, they swung the door wide open, and it will be up to courts to close it later. That vagueness is the terrifying part, who knows what acts will be “justified” later.
They aren’t though. They say in the document that they are the final word on what is within the scope of official acts. So it’s not even a separate regulating body purpose built for that. It’s lower courts making a decision and the SCOTUS deciding if it is right and wrong and having the final say.
If you trust the courts, that works fine, but they have proven all year how the court is definitely partisan and corrupt now. The court shouldn’t swing in either direction - they should be only beholden to the constitution, and justices who take money are no longer just listening to the constitution
Yes. And to be clear I don’t think this is a good thing. I’m actually very much against the courts deciding the purview of what is lawful conduct for the president within his duties to the Constitution and what is not.
Do I think the average citizen should be worried about the President signing their death warrant? No.
That’s not what anybody is worried about, but rather that this is the vanguard of a movement whose followers will happily kill us for any number of out-group reasons, take away bodily autonomy, labor rights, civil rights, and regulatory protections, and then, okay, yes, have the President sign our death warrants should we decide to protest all of this.
As one of the candidates has openly advocated and said he’d do.
I’m trans and I’m legitimately worried the President will try to cure my ADHD by sending me to a camp that specializes in “concentration” if you catch my cold
Is anybody NOT concerned?
Fascists and their sheep that trying to turn the US into a dictatorship…
From the lack of reaction to how big this change is, too many are not concerned IMO.
deleted by creator
Every prison is for-profit.
how?
Police unions. Less than ten percent of federal prisons are private. Who do you think lobbies more: 10% of prisons or the unions for 90% of federal prison employees?
The public ones still give out contracts for all of the services performed.
oh i see, you mean every US prison. couldn’t think of a reason why any prison would be for profit this side of the pond
I mean the UK put a dude in prison for four months for having a miniature Master Sword on a street alone thanks to CCTV.
yes but i seem to be missing the for-profit bit of that arrest
