Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Actually I think it is far worse than you may…
They ruled that the president is immune from prosecution for official acts they would get to rule on what that means.
So if Biden does X; they could rule it not official; but if Trump were to do that same thing, I’ve no doubt they would rule the other way
I have not read the ruling but if this is how it goes then it feels like a slow burn coup by the SCOTUS. The fate of every decision of the president is in the hands of these justices. They now control what is 'official' and what is not. They now control the president in some way.
or maybe (hopefully) I'm wrong.
Very similar to Nazis path to power, a lot of provocative action, violence, and people stop giving a shit that they are constantly doing this, an attempt at a violent coup, it dosen't work, then the people in power create legal pretexts to allow a seemingly legal way to dictatorship.
Says right in the ruling it's up to the trails court to determine what is official.
That's only a delay tactic since it'll eventually come back to SCROTUS
The fact that Clarence Thomas has his name on this ruling really helps illustrate how easy and often cheap it is to simply buy rulings.
I wonder, what do you think the ruling changed? What can the president do now that the president wasn't able to do before?
Did you read the dissenting judges statements on the ruling? Sitting Supreme Court Justices have publicly given their legal opinion on what the ruling means.
Did you read it?