119
submitted 2 weeks ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 55 points 2 weeks ago

"Trump has argued that immunity is both implicit in the text and necessary"

Bullshit. That motherfucker can’t read.

[-] mecfs@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago
[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

You mean the decision released like a whole hour ago? Someone is behind on the news

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

You're right.

And fuck.

Edit:

“But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”

I don't even understand this ruling. He isn't being prosecuted for official acts or exercising his core constitutional powers. The president doesn't have the constitutional power to commit election fraud or incite an insurrectionist mob or mishandle classified documents.

[-] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Copy and paste from another post I made:

This ruling sounds good on its face, but it’s mixed at best and somewhat bad in the broad view.

  1. It doesn’t define what is or isn’t an official duty or act. It gives some examples and then says it’s up to the lower courts to decide what is or isn’t on a case by case basis. It specifically said some of the current allegations are official acts that can’t be prosecuted and said some of the others are probably not official acts but the lower courts will have to rule on them. I’m sure that will be a speedy process that gets done before the election!

  2. It also says it is the government’s burden to prove an act isn’t official, which will slow everything down and bring the cases back to SCOTUS again on a case by case basis. This also opens the possibility of political assassinations as being argued as official acts.

  3. It mentions Presidents having limited immunity from having to make documents available. It does say it isn’t absolute, but it definitely leaves the door open to block current court cases from using many documents as evidence and also leaves the door open to claim immunity for the classified docs case. Evidence fights at the current criminal cases are about to be much harder for the prosecution to win. Now, it does say that former Presidents no longer have this immunity but isn’t clear whether that is for all docs or only docs for after they are former Presidents.

  4. Maybe the worst is that it rules INTENT cannot be questioned. That is a core concept of criminal cases: intent matters! They are holding that it would bog down a President to be constantly asked about his/her intent when doing official acts, so therefor courts cannot question it. This REALLY opens the possibility of political assassinations, since intent behind the act cannot be questioned (e.g. it presupposes the person who was assassinated was committing treason or planning a terrorist attack and therefor the Presidential act was official). It does not say that former Presidents no longer have the Intent immunity, so this might be rough to clear in courts.

  5. It specifically ruled that it is 100% OK to fire a person if they don’t do the illegal thing the President asks them to do, as long as that person’s job is something the President can hire/fire. It also ruled that if the illegal thing the President asks them to do falls within their job duties, then the President is immune from prosecution for asking for that illegal thing.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

It sounds to me like they are limiting the scope of things he can be charged with but not saying he’s immune from Jan 6 prosecution altogether

[-] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 2 weeks ago

I'll wait for a good legal breakdown to come to firm conclusions, but it sounds like SCOTUS found a way to make a ruling that drags Trump's trials out even more. They have to separate the acts that have immunity from the ones that don't.

[-] Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago

This is why armed violence is necessary. The legal and political systems are a joke.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

When are you going to lead the mob? I haven't gotten any memos.

[-] Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 weeks ago

When are you going to stop doing absolutely nothing?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I'm not the one who said armed violence needs to happen, that's you. So when are you going to start? Don't try to weasel out of it by not giving an answer. If you're not brave enough to lead the mob and expect someone else to do it, just say so.

[-] PenisWenisGenius@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)
[-] ashok36@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Biden was borderline incomprehensible and his answers went in three directions at once. I would have been thrilled if his only problem was a raspy voice.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world -5 points 2 weeks ago

That's funny cuz I heard a ton of policy that night.

Maybe you're just stupid?

[-] ashok36@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

You can insult me all you want. I wanted Biden to tear trump a new one. He had one job that night and he failed miserably.

this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
119 points (97.6% liked)

News

21850 readers
3226 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.


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