810
The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially
(www.thenation.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
810 points (100.0% liked)
politics
23141 readers
2998 users here now
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You would think that somebody that called themselves a journalist would actually have journalistic integrity. Nothing the 'journalist' claimed was in the SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS ruled that the president has immunity for many of his presidential actions and none for personal actions such as going on a murder streak
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):
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."
Right, that's literally the point. All a malfeasant president would need to do is declare that assassinating political rivals is an official presidential action. If the president argues that it's an official act of their office and not of their own personhood, there's little room to hold them accountable for it.
It may seem like an absolutely ridiculous argument, and that's because it is. What constitutes an "official" presidential action was left intentionally un-defined by the court, so that such ridiculous arguments could be treated as legitimate if the immunity is challenged.
Perhaps Biden could firmly establish precedent for that...two birds, etc.
Why should we listen to you and not Sotomayor?
The only remedy the current court's ruling really allows is impeachment. It essentially means that (absent a later ruling specifying exactly what counts as a President's "official acts,") the President can do literally anything he wants and never suffer any consequences. Don't agree that what he was doing was an official act? Impeach him or stfu. He's not going to jail for breaking any law, ever.
Who's going to impeach him? They will file the articles of impeachment then get waxed that night on their way home.
As President my FIRST OFFICIAL ACT is to get a 3 Kill Streak UAV!