231
US Supreme Court rules Trump has immunity for official, not private acts
(www.reuters.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 01 Jul 2024
231 points (99.1% liked)
politics
18114 readers
3649 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.
- 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!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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
Literal last minute decision on this one. SCOTUS is definitely running interference for Trump, without a doubt.
Biden should declare Trump a national security threat and have him assassinated. That's an "official act", is it not? Sure, it helps Biden immensely, but now who is to determine where an official act ends and a private self-serving one begins? Are those two necessarily mutually exclusive?
Disclaimer: I have no idea what the right move here is. It's a shitty situation. "How Democracies Die" talks about it in quite a bit of detail, but basically, in the unfolding collapse of a democracy, there's a terrible temptation to start eroding democratic norms "in kind" in response to their eroding from the fascist side, but this is a mistake. You have to keep fighting on the tilted table without trying to tilt it back, because eroding the norms of behavior plays right into the fascists' hands and those democratic standards are horrifyingly hard to get back once you've broken the seal.
But, that being said, keeping in mind that this is satire to make a point: I don't think Biden should have Trump assassinated, or anybody. I do think that it would be a little more directly on the nose if he, as an official act, had Seal Team 6 ambush all the justices that voted for this (as an official act of course), take them with hoods over their heads and in ziptie cuffs to an undisclosed location, and then put up on YouTube the video of someone asking them a few questions in a bare concrete room in that undisclosed location, requesting that they clarify that this is really what they meant. Sort of bring some reality to what is the door they are trying to open, on a personal level, to them. Because I am 100% serious when I say that that is 100% very literally the door they have chosen to open. Sort of a "Let's close this door back up tight, right brother? Unless you are sure you want to open it? Really, like really for real sure with no backsies?"
If only. That would be amazing and thank you for the dream, but they've all got private security, I don't see how this could be done without someone being shot, which changes the whole context and would make it something that could be spun to easily.
But it brings up the whole issue doesn't it? The court feels they will never have to deal with the consequences of any of this. Surely a trump-style president would never come after them.
Damnit, we've been to this movie.
Just do it publicly then, right after court ends. Just detain them, and their body gaurds if you need to.