Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
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
I'm a bit bothered that people aren't going to the web to read the ruling in full. They're relying heavily on dissenting SCOTUS member's statements and the media. I'm also disheartened at the number of people who don't know their rights, don't understand the government's functions in society, and don't understand that the constitution is meant to be a living document that restricts what the government can do, not what its citizens can. Of course the number of people who don't know what's in the constitution and its amendments is also very high.
It wasn't that terribly long ago that we didn't have presidential term limits. There's absolutely a way forward with further amendments to the constitution which is something we as a people should also lobby for.
Edit: Speak of the devil: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4750735-joe-morelle-amendment-supreme-court-immunity-ruling/
The real problem isn't what this does right now, it's how vague and open it is to interpretation. Official acts aren't described anywhere in it, and they're explicitly allowing other courts to decide rather than call out things that are obviously wrong for someone with that much power to do. Rather than cracking the door and opening it when needed, they swung the door wide open, and it will be up to courts to close it later. That vagueness is the terrifying part, who knows what acts will be "justified" later.
They aren't though. They say in the document that they are the final word on what is within the scope of official acts. So it's not even a separate regulating body purpose built for that. It's lower courts making a decision and the SCOTUS deciding if it is right and wrong and having the final say.
If you trust the courts, that works fine, but they have proven all year how the court is definitely partisan and corrupt now. The court shouldn't swing in either direction - they should be only beholden to the constitution, and justices who take money are no longer just listening to the constitution
Yes. And to be clear I don't think this is a good thing. I'm actually very much against the courts deciding the purview of what is lawful conduct for the president within his duties to the Constitution and what is not.
Yeah I see it as left open so it can swing either way depending on the election, and that worries me. As a kid I was naive, I thought we had the perfect uncorruptable government, and here we are proving even the nine people who are supposed to be the least corrupted people - are some of the most.
This one, including all text from the justices (including dissents) is over a hundred pages. That's doable for many people, though not all, and it should be important enough to prioritize for those who can. But I think this one falls into the category of sticking my head up a bull's ass while most people will just see what the butcher has to say.
Reading even the first few pages would be preferable to the fear mongering and panic in my opinion. If you're getting a pared down version from Cornell law, fine. If it's coming from fox news or vox media, I don't think that should be the end of anyone's endeavours to understand what is going on.