143
submitted 5 months ago by Maven@lemmy.zip to c/usa@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 72 points 5 months ago

So Biden could lock him up as a threat to democracy and the republic?

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 46 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Joe Biden could shoot Donald Trump with a gun.

[-] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 5 points 5 months ago

How would that be an official presidential act?

[-] baronvonj@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago

Declare him to be a Clear and Present Danger to the Union. Now it's an official act to safeguard against the danger. So take official action, then wait and see if anybody prosecutes after the fact to prove it wasn't an official act.

[-] Delusional@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Well we used to straight up kill traitors instead of letting them off and letting them try running for an office that they once tried to steal multiple times through various nefarious ways.

Killing a traitor sure sounds like an official act.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Tiltinyall@beehaw.org 2 points 5 months ago

Capture the man and exile him to an island. Start a reality show where contestants are gradually moved onto the island with him one by one. He will establish a new form of governance and be given the keys to the next presidency as a reward for a certain benchmark of success in creating a new functional democracy. Lol

[-] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

Fingers crossed

[-] mke_geek@lemm.ee 8 points 5 months ago
[-] Auzy@beehaw.org 8 points 5 months ago

At this point of time, I'm wondering why Fox News and maga isn't defined as a terrorist organisation.

Fox News and Trump are already doing small things again to set up a civil war.

Money. That's why.

[-] oxjox@lemmy.ml 43 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

So, would official acts as president be legal by definition? Would there be such a thing as an official act as president that may otherwise be criminal?

And how does the ruling protect against treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors (specifically, the past part)? How is this ruling not in direct contrast to the constitution?

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 20 points 5 months ago

This is the Supreme Court more or less officially agreeing with the nixonian logic of “if the president does it, that means that it is not illegal”. I honestly don’t see another way to describe it.

Biden should by all means act accordingly. But I sincerely doubt he will.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] stewie3128@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago

The job of President throughout the 20th century has involved committing crimes. If they gave that away, then all of these ghouls could potentially be prosecuted.

In the future, the former President could go to jail for the next version of Iran-Contra... and we couldn't possibly allow that to happen.

[-] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 6 points 5 months ago

I wonder what the US would've been like if leaders were actually held accountable...

[-] stewie3128@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago

We wouldn't exist as the US.

[-] silent_water@hexbear.net 8 points 5 months ago

So, would official acts as president be legal by definition?

yes, and further that any exercise of constitutional authority is an official act.

Would there be such a thing as an official act as president that may otherwise be criminal?

in the prosecutable sense? no. the president is no longer bound by congressional authority.

And how does the ruling protect against treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors (specifically, the past part)?

courts won't do shit about it, congress will have to (lmao)

How is this ruling not in direct contrast to the constitution?

the constitution is toilet paper and always has been. scotus just wiped some diarrhea with it.

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Because no one else gave you an actual explanation I will. The highest law in the US legal system is the Constitution. In it the president's official duties are described. Congress could not pass a law blocking him from doing his official duties as Constitution>Enacted Bill. To override the Constitution they would need to pass an amendment. Because of this any law enacted that may be otherwise lawful is unlawful as applied to the president if they were doing the act as part of their official duties.

If Congress could pass a law saying no one can issue pardons and arrest the president for doing so they'd have effectively stripped text out of the constitution.

As for protecting against treason and bribery, those don't sound like official acts. But they did cite an earlier case about Nixon that had previously set restrictions on how prosecutors may obtain information, that may benefit in any trial.

[-] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 40 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Biden should now officially order those judges executed. Put in place a law that the supreme court must contain an even split of representatives from both/all major parties.

Then install judges who will reverse the immunity law... Meaning this problem will not come up again.

EDIT: Upon reflection, maybe they just reaffirmed the presumption of innocence for someone who's job it is to sometimes order the deaths of people. So he has "The presumption of immunity" until determined by a court case, or impeachment hearing? Is that what's going on?

[-] AlbertSpangler@lemmings.world 16 points 5 months ago

Your supreme court decides what counts as official and unofficial.

Your nation is fucked. The chances and opportunities to prevent it being fucked have passed, and now it is too late.

The only hope for the rest of the world is that the US tears itself apart internally.

[-] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It's arguably been been fucked at least as far back as Citizen's United if not longer. Once they opened the floodgates for legalized bribery, there was no coming back.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 5 months ago

Truth hurts my heart, but I've seen it for quite a while.

[-] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 3 points 5 months ago

"No! Not like that!"

[-] Cobrachickenwing@lemmy.ca 35 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Quid quo pro is back on the menu boys!

If a president threatens you if you don't invest in his/her company it is not abuse of office, it is an official act.

If another country wants American weapons but you need to donate to the party of the president it is not bribery, it is an official act.

The supreme court has made the rule of law meaningless for top government officials. The president now has absolute power and will need to be removed by bloodshed.

P.S. the supreme court also ruled a kickback after a government decision is NOT bribery as well. #worstsupremecourt.

[-] lemmyseizethemeans@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 5 months ago

There is no rule of law there is only power. It's Machiavelli The Prince. 'rules based order' lol

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 25 points 5 months ago

The gradual dawning upon liberals that their cherished notion of living in a functioning democracy is nothing but an illusion is a perpetually amusing spectacle, providing endless entertainment for those who have long recognized the harsh realities of political power structures of capitalist society.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 19 points 5 months ago

The "Biden could/should do" comments, especially. Biden will do fa, because they're on the same team.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Beaver@lemmy.ca 21 points 5 months ago

Impeach Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, John Roberts and Donald Trump.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago

Ah. Well, if all official duties of the Executive are immune to all laws lower than the Constitution itself, which itself bars him from very little and gives the Executive responsibility for enforcement of all laws, I guess a Constitutional Amendment is ultimately required then.

Authoritarians are irritating.

[-] alilbee@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

Never gonna get an amendment in this country without a mass change in voting patterns. We would have to own congress for that.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Jaderick@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

I’d call them more than irritating lmao.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

It's a battle that's been going for centuries, bigger than any one of us. Taking it personally only has drawbacks, it's not required for motivation. Breathing exercises can help.

[-] L0rdMathias@sh.itjust.works 12 points 5 months ago

I, officially, declare myself as grand-emperor of the US. I declare, officially, that all dissenters shall be silenced. I declare, using official declaration of course, that all those richer than I owe me 100% of their assets for the rest of eternity. I officially decree that no government official, except for myself, can leave their building of work, can excuse themselves from their position, and cannot access the Internet, watch television, listen to radio broadcasts, or read books of any kind. And they have to bring their own lunches every day. Breaking any rule is punishable by exile to the Mariana trench. Exiles will be given one submersible operated by a Logitech gamepad. Making all of these rules officially of course, wouldn't want them to be criminal acts.

[-] solarbabies@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

Fuckin stellar. Wtg SCROTUS.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

That ruling goes Way Beyond core Constitutional Powers I don't know what the fuck the author of this is talking about.

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago

Cool, great, immediately imprison The Idiot. As an official act.

[-] oxjox@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Deleting my apparently wrong comment. Pft.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
143 points (99.3% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7328 readers
125 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS