politics
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! 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Under this ruling the president has absolute immunity for their use of any powers granted by the constitution, and that includes use of the military, pardon powers, and appointing and firing of executive department officials. Their motivations and purposes for use of those powers cannot be questioned by the courts or by any laws passed by congress.
The whole "official" vs "non official" acts things only comes into play for powers not explicitly granted by the constitution. And even then the president gets presumptive immunity.
Go read the actual ruling and the dissents and stop spreading misinformation. The journalist and the headline are accurate.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Quoting from Sotomayer's dissent (pp 29-30, paragraphing my own):
They go on with an incisive critique of the majority's reasoning:
Sotomayor is behind the times.
They're not "bribes" anymore, they're "donations" now.
That's not true. Criminal acts are not protected, nor can they be made in an official capacity. Furthermore, the ruling says the court that determines official acts is the trails court. Not the supreme Court. Stop spreading misinformation.
The ruling doesn't even allow unrelated trials to use evidence that might be from official presidential business. Trump just requested his conviction in NY to be overburdened based on this ruling. So how it would not protect criminal acts when you can see in your own eyes this being used to get away from criminal acts. The other trials are also in jeopardy.
As for the "decision made by trials court" that is insignificant as SCOTUS can override them.
You cannot commit criminal acts in an official capacity, full stop. It is not possible. The moment your actions are criminal you are no longer upholding the oath you have taken and the action is not official. Obviously.
“When the president does it, it is not illegal”
This has been a long time coming and the presumption is that he is allowed to until that is somehow challenged.
Again, incorrect. Stop reading headlines and making decisions. Read the ruling. You are spreading misinformation.
Oo, nice try turning this around on them. But nah, man, you're refusing to acknowledge the ruling itself explicitly telling you you're wrong. You're not arguing in good faith. Go away.
Direct from the decision (page 31):
What's a criminal act when your highest court gives you a free pass? Laws mean nothing if they are not enforced.
The highest court didn't give any president a free pass. If the president is carrying out a function of the constitution there is immunity. For everything else they enjoy no immunity. Like for instance breaking a law.
And the courts bought by Trump and Co. will see to it that every criminal behavior is considered official and constitutional. You are a bit blind if you see this having any positive effect. The president, and anyone else for that matter, should have zero immunity. Immunity only invites abuse. Just look at qualified immunity for a great example of how it is a failed idea.
Never once have I said I'm for this.
True, but your defense of it does give the appearance that you at the least do not mind it. You don't seem to find it problematic, and to others that itself is also problematic. Please feel free to contradict me if I'm wrong, but from what you've said so far you really, as I mentioned, do seem to not see the issues or repercussions this will have.
First responders have (in some counties had) immunity while doing their job. If grandma needs CPR you don't want a first responder to hesitate to provide that CPR because they might crack a rib and get sued, or worse, thrown in jail.
The president should not be afraid to make decisions in fear of political retaliation, which is exactly what this ruling clarifys.
If the first responder breaks the law they are held accountable. If the president breaks the law they will be held accountable.
This doesn't mean the president can do whatever they want and they are immune from the law. That's ridiculous. The ruling even states that.
There is a key difference there I think. That is that one is engaged in saving people that are about to die, the other has power to ruin a large swath of ordinary lives and set orders in place that destroy industries or prop up harmful ones, and remove agencies and regulations that keep people safe. They should be held accountable at all times of their presidency. They should be concerned about what can happen if they make a greviously bad decision. There should be no immunity and they should be held accountable for their actions just as every other person in this country is.
And again, in an ideal world, they would be held accountable by laws. But in this case, if we are talking Trump, he will not be because the highest court in the nation, is corrupt and planted by him as loyalists to him, and will give him a free pass and now will say it was because he had immunity. I and ideal world we wouldn't have to have this conversation, but we are not talking about an ideal world.
The president already had immunity before this ruling. You or I cannot send a missle to Iran to kill people. The president can. It's been like this for 200 years. It was like this when Trump was president. The president didn't gain any magic law dodging powers. They aren't suddenly a genie that can do whatever they want.
Please tell me what capacity any court has to enforce a ruling against a sitting President. I'll wait.
As that bastard Andrew Jackson once (allegedly) said "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."