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?
As with the lowest posts in this thread, this will not be popular, but I’ll say it anyway.
I’m not concerned. Not because I think everything is fine. It’s because it’s not been fine for a long long time. Now the curtain is being pulled back and everyone can see the reality that’s always been there. Privilege just means private law, and the president is the most privileged person in the US. As time moves forward the window dressing is removed and we can see reality for what it really is. It reminds me of This Vicious Cabaret:
But the backdrop’s peel and the sets give way and the cast gets eaten by the play / There’s a murderer at the Matinee, there are dead men in the aisles / And the patrons and actors too are uncertain if the show is through / And with side-long looks await their cue but the frozen mask just smiles.
Well, that’s one way to look at it, but too, keep in mind Hemingway’s famous description of how somebody goes broke: Slowly, then all at once.
This ruling is only possible and accepted because the current political climate allows for that, true. Things haven’t been fine for a while. But this is a sign that they keep getting worse.
I vehemently disagree with the idea that it’s a good thing to have “the curtain pulled back”. Realpolitik is and has been true forever - but public perception and acceptance matters a huge amount. These popular illusions and ideals are a part of the calculation of realpolitik.
Society should be idealistic, it should expect better - because those expectations shape the actions of politicians. Our society losing its ideals shouldn’t be applauded, it should be mourned.
imo, nothing feels more deep state than scotus serving a different america.
also, i just saw some lemmy post a twitter pic saying said scotus ruling is unconstitutional. since the judicial branch is the one responsible with interpreting the law, we can probably tell what they are going to interpret “unconstitutional” as at this point.
The SCOTUS has decided that precedent is no longer the basis of the American legal system and is throwing out existing settled law willy nilly. The legal syatem is fully broken at this point.
The SCOTUS has decided that the constitution and separation of powers that forms the foundation of (relatively) safe government that we’ve depended on up until this point, is no longer the basis of the American legal system.
If it was just precedent, it still wouldn’t be good, but it would still be quite a bit safer and less seditionous than what they did.
The argument I saw for this was that a president shouldn’t have to second guess every action they take while in office. That if they are held liable for everything they do, they may be paralyzed to make changes to the government.
I kinda thought that was kinda what the founders wanted to happen…
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.
Wtf is that third thing? Are you confusing it with the thing Trump did, refusing to give them funds until they make up dirt on Biden? Because what you said was weird and untrue. The first two things were.
So say two obvious and proven things then throw a third one in there as if it were similarly sure to have happened. Fuck Biden and all but I love the truth.
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. Because they specifically said this is not the case.
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. 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.
They’re essentially protecting a president from flagrant lawsuits that could be brought for unfounded accusations. The constitution outlines a handful of constitutional duties (such as pardoning) which are by definition the law not prosecutable. There’s a presumption of immunity for their official acts. Anything they do outside of official acts is not immune.
Nothing has really changed. It’s only made it more clear how difficult the process is to indict a president. The Fourth section of Article II still exists.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
So, let’s say, not for the first time ever, a president orders an assassination and congress wants to hold them accountable for this action. It will need to be determined if this act was part of their official duties. The issue SCOTUS has presented is that it’s very, very difficult for congress to obtain the motivation for such an act. Such a case would be dependent on the specific circumstances. I mean, if the president orders the assassination of a foreign leader, no one’s going to, nor have the ever, question that. If they order the assassination of a congressional leader, don’t imagine they’re going to get away with that.
The president already was protected from all civil lawsuits due to previous rulings. This ruling was only about criminal prosecutions.
He has absolute immunity for any use, for any reason, of his core presidential powers include anything listed in article 2 (the military, pardons, firing or hiring officials within the executive department). There is no determining if those are an official act or not. Anything the president does with an article 2 power is an official act with absolute immunity now. Motives or reason for using that power or the outcome of that cannot be questioned. It is legal to bribe the president to pardon someone right now. The fact that it happened couldn’t even be mentioned in court.
Only when the president is doing something not listed in the constitution can it be determined if it’s an official or unofficial act by the courts and should be immune. And again it’s the action, not the motive or the result or purpose of the action, that determines whether it is official. The only example they gave was talking to justice department officials is official. So if he is talking to justice department officials to arrange a bribe or plan a coup? Legal, immune, can’t even be used as evidence against him. It doesn’t matter why he was talking to the justice department, the fact that he was makes him immune from any laws he breaks in the process of doing so. They aren’t determining if a bribe or coup is an official act, they’re determining if talking to justice department officials in general is. It doesn’t matter what he’s actually doing it for, arranging a coup? That’s perfectly okay. Oh someone found out, pardon everyone else involved in the conspiracy who wasn’t already immune. Now it can’t even be brought up in court.
In the example you gave of ordering an assassination, if it used the military to do the assassination that is a core power, cannot be questioned. The supreme court ruling placed no limits on what can be done with his article 2 powers. Only a nebulous official vs not official test for things not listed in article 2. There’s also a very worrying vague phrase about “ensuring laws are faithfully executed” that even Barrett thought was too much in her concurrence.
Impeachment is the only recourse now as you say, but even if impeached and removed from office by some miracle, they still wouldn’t be able to be held criminally liable afterwards for that.
Everyone panicking in this thread is right to do so.
There is a group of individuals who are attempting to gain control of Congress who would allow a certain person, if elected president carte blanche to do anything as “an official act”. A good portion buys the line that this former president declassified documents just by thinking so.
There is another set of 5 or 6 individuals that have happily shown they will prioritize their own beliefs and views over judicial principles their country had maintained over the last couple centuries.
We have already seen Congress try to hold a criminal President to account. It hasn’t worked yet and these rulings make it even less likely to.
They’re essentially protecting a president from flagrant lawsuits that could be brought for unfounded accusations.
Usually i see strawmen making things sound worse than they are, but this is the complete opposite. Lawsuits is strawman, unfounded is strawman, accusations is strawman. This is for criminal cases, not civil, its actual prosecution, not accusations, and no requirement that they be unfounded for this immunity to apply. You are trying extremely hard to downplay this and cant have good intentions for this. Other justices have already claimed this includes political assassinations, and Trumps own legal team has already made the argument assassinating a political opponent can be an official act as president.
Why do you imagine that a President wouldn’t get away with assassination of a Congressional leader? Say, for example, that Pres. Trump tells special ops forces that he has ironclad intelligence that Rep. Hakim Jeffries is a Chinese agent orchestrating an imminent attack on the U.S., and orders him killed on an overseas trip. That’s a legal order from the commander in chief, on the face of it. (I mean, the track record of the military refusing orders is extremely thin on the ground, and it won’t really matter if they install loyalists like Project 2025 calls for.) We’ve already established the precedent that the President has immense discretion to handle immediate threats.
And maybe it was a lie, but that’s irrelevant. He has absolute immunity in the exercise of his Article 2 duties. End of story. The only possible remedy is impeachment, and, well, who’s going to do that?
Trump was president for four years, enjoyed all of this immunity already, and not one politician was murdered. Pretty sure we’ll be alright.
Not one politician was murdered, but funny story about January 6, 2021…
Beau of the Fifth Column on Youtube: https://youtu.be/vNzFQ10uSfU https://youtu.be/0Y-C1fWx37g
“This is now the most important election issue; it has to supersede all of the other ones. The American people now are no longer no longer choosing between two candidates that they really don’t like as many of the previous election cycles have been. They’re trying to make a determination which one is less likely to become a tyrant.”
The only problem I have with this quote is that a large portion of the electorate want the tyrant.
The same people who want the tyrant are the same crowd that wanted covid. There’s too many morons.
I was hoping the Anti-Vaxxers would take themselves out by refusing medicine… Too many of them survived…
It’s one more piece of Project 2025.
Trump is the side-show. Stop getting distracted by his fat orange ass. The disorganized, played more golf and gave more bad speeches than any President before him is just a side show. Most of the executive branch jobs that go with the administration each election were left empty in 2016.
Project 2025 is an organized, focused Trump term where the machinery runs for him. Where the mechanics of what to do have been thought out and planned for since 2020. Where he can sit on a gold toilet and truly let other people handle the day to day.
And just sign it all with presidential immunity.
So unless cardiovascular disease does it’s fucking job in the next 4 months (yeah, that’s right, the self imposed I don’t want to deal with it time warp you’re in let you forget that it’s just 4 months away), and bad COVID comes back and hits the SCOTUS hard, it’ll be SCOTUS 2.0 for the entire executive branch of the government come 2025. And like a SCOTUS vote, that 2:1 vote in our entire government will be in favor of authoritarian Christian nationalism. That’s what the the SCOTUS vote on immunity is. It’s not about Trump. It’s about authoritarianism going forward.
High odds on Project 2025 because I know you fuckers under 40 won’t be voting in the numbers boomers or GenX do. You’ll stock up on the steam summer sale, maybe get a Costco crate of cool ranch, tuck in, and try to pretend it’s not happening instead.
Yea, it sucks, but the vote is basically Kamala or Trump. No or yes on Project 2025. And if project 2025 goes in, America really is dead and shit is going to get violent.
Not sure another play through of Mass Effect Legendary or BG3 is going to be able to block that out this time.
OK boomer
Lol, not a boomer.
All I hear is I can’t vote for this asshole because Israel. Or, I’m not doing this (Trump and Biden) again.
And games are everyone these days. From boomers to high schoolers. Granted, I think the number of boomers is likely less than all the rest. I’m sure Steam is doing a hefty sales level from GenX on down.
And there absolutely is a time warp of avoidance in general. Even the media has less energy for the election crap of late.
Oh, bonus, sentencing for trump is being delayed until after the election.
Millenials are old now. We’re not “the youth”, we’re like mid-30s to early 40s.
Four years ago, when the last presidential election occurred, the millennial age range was 24-39. Beyond that, I’m comparing generational participation in elections at particular ages.
Further, not all of Gen Z will be of voting age for this election, so the youngest generational cohort where all members of that cohort are able to vote is still millennials, i.e., millennials are the youngest generation able to fully participate in elections.
I’m not saying millennials are all “young,” I’m saying that in terms of electoral participation statistics, they’re the youngest generation able to fully participate, and that compared to when Gen X and Boomers were going, Gen Z and Millennials participate (and have participated) at higher rates than the generations above them.
This is contrary to the subtext of the Boomer Lite (Gen X) poster to which I’m responding that implies younger generations are too busy distracting themselves with their phones and video games to participate in politics.
It seemed really obvious to me that he was talking about actual youth, ie Zoomers. But you started throwing a bunch of statistics about millenials.
Millenials are a politically active generation. The fear is that Zoomers are not. That was the point I got from his comment.
As I said, Gen Z has, so far, participated in the elections they’ve been eligible for at higher rates than any previous generation since the age of voting was made 18, including millennials.
The youngest of Gen Z is currently about 12 years old, so they’ve had less elections to participate in with a smaller percentage of their generational cohort able to participate. Nevertheless, so far, a higher percentage of eligible Gen Z voters have voted in elections than Millennials, Boomers, and Boomers Lite.
The youngest generational cohort that are all above the voting age are millennials, which have also voted at higher rates than Boomers and Boomers Lite at similar ages.
Nevertheless, so far, a higher percentage of eligible Gen Z voters have voted in elections than Millennials, Boomers, and Boomers Lite.
…compared to previous generations at that age.
Youth turnout is still abysmal, it’s just less abysmal than previous generations.
K
Yes, it scares the shit out of me. Even if we manage to never elect Trump before he dies, the next time any Republican makes it to the presidency, the American Experiment is over.
I think it’s silly to assume that this can’t and won’t be abused by Democrats as well, given time. The worst thing we could do in this situation is make it partisan.
No president should have this power.
Not to defend the democrats too much but even if they do it, the SCOTUS is heavily biased against them which means that they would get heavily punished.
Also at the least the liberal wing of the SCOTUS voted against this, unlike the republican appointed judges.
So there’s clearly one side pushing for this and one trying to prevent it.
It could be abused by Democrats as well. If we get to that point, all hope is lost anyway.
Qualified immunity was bad enough, fuck yeah I’m worried. Politicians should have fewer protections, not more. This is supposed to be a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” and this is not that.
Enjoy your King, fellow subjects.
Yep. I’m so over American politics and I think the nation is headed in the wrong direction. I feel that the people are powerless against changing our trajectory. I had been considering doing a PhD abroad and this is really pushing that decision now.
Do it. Do it now. You know what kind of person lived a life knowing they made the right decision?
Everyone that left Germany in 1932.
Let’s say the best possible thing happens. Biden crushes Trump, the Republicans lose so many seats Team Not Fascists can push through Constitutional Amendments.
What would Democrats actually change for the better?
Do you think that is likely?
Or will you be spending the rest of your life wondering if this is the election year that starts a civil war in one of the the most militarised nations on the planet? Do you want to be in a major nuclear power where one side specifically hates cities when it has a civil war?
Even if things go relatively well, this bullshit isn’t ending without one. As a best outcome! The other is no one even doing it that! Every two fucking years you’re going to be watching which Congressional seats fall to fascism because one team has just chosen to abandon reality and democracy.
What would Democrats actually change for the better?
-
See Canada
-
See Norway
-
Do like them.
That’s about 20 years of reform.
- GO TO 1
You’re right that they could.
Now look at their past legislation. Will they?
The democrats are not even left enough to be a centrist party in Canada. They will not reform.
While you might be generally correct, some of the legislation passed during Biden’s term is genuinely better than what even Europe could come up with.
More likely they’ll have a party and slap each other on the back for not needing to court the union vote anymore.
-
No dude, it’s only the most talked about things right now.
I’m not American and so am not in touch with American politics, but I have an American friend who doesn’t seem to be bothered by it. I assume he knows better than me, so I’m trying not to worry about it.
But if I were to worry about it, I can see the whole Trump situation leading to another civil war for you guys…
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 ale 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.
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.
I’m very concerned. The US has been increasingly authoritarian for a long time. But I really hate hoarding people are only seeing “oh shit that’s authoritarian now”
I mean, let’s be real, we live in a fucking authoritarian police state, and this isn’t something that suddenly happened with Trump or the SCOTUS, they are just showing some of the terminal symptoms. Our police force is above the law, mass surveillance is normal, corporate surveillance is a profitable business that doesn’t shirk from getting profit from the Govt, and our democratic system is feeling pretty autocratic.
The oppressive arms of the next authoritarian on the throne of the oval office have been set up over many decades, accelerating recently. But now that the throne has been polished, people are starting to notice.
This system is fucked.
Hopefully this is a wake up call. We’ve got military bases all around the world, the only country like that. That’s weird, right? We’re the world government stomping around the world, deciding what countries are part of the modern world and which ones aren’t depending not on whether you’re a dictatorship or not, but whether we like you and if your economic policies are beneficial to us. And that authoritarianism and imperialism is finally coming home to roost domestically. I hate to see it, because I live here, but it makes sense with what we’ve been as a country since we killed off all the natives for their land.
Bringing up imperialism is a good call, you’re absolutely right. Although I left it out in my comment, the techniques used abroad always come back home on Foucault’s imperial boomerang.
The technology we use on our borders will be used to oppress activists and protesters in the city. The techniques used to stomp on indigenous people abroad will stomp on our queers and PoC back at home. Old military equipment will be sold to the military we turn on our civilians: cops.
