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.
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
view the rest of the comments
I don't know exactly what the limits of his powers are, but at the most extreme couldn't he blockade the homes of the conservative justices, preventing them from fulfilling their duties? If any official act is immune, why not go all the way? I guess it could get him impeached, which probably wouldn't be great for November, but it feels like something has got to give at this point, these rulings have been beyond the pale.
The understanding of what is and isn't an official act is severely lacking. An official act is within the duties of the president. The president can't break the law and claim it was an official duty, lol.
Something about "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". They would be arguing about the detailed interpretation longer than Biden will be around.
That's extremely doubtful, as Trump was never convicted for something that would label him as an enemy of the United States.
Didn't he get 34 counts of election fraud? Election fraud seems threatening to the USA.
Falsifying business records is not election fraud is the eyes of the law.
idk man "upholding democracy and fair representation" seems awfully familiar to what would be considered an "official action" to me, but what do i fucking know.
According to the supreme court they can, as long as breaking the law was an official act.
No, again, you've misunderstood. Breaking the law is not within the duties of the president.
ok so question then, if the immunity act makes the president criminally immune, how does it not constitute breaking the law as a duty of the president? What the fuck is that supposed to mean otherwise?
The best example is first responders. They have immunity doing their duty. They cannot hesitate to perform their duty - such as giving life saving services - if they fear they are unsuccessful and are sued / thrown in prison. If they break the law though on duty it was never their duty to break the law and are therefore not immune. Take CPR. They might perform CPR and injure the person they are working over, or they might not save them. The family of that person cannot sue them, nor can a court convict them if they accidentally make things worse.
Same thing with the president. The president can't break the law and say, "whoops, just doing my official duty". It doesn't work like that.
the president already has immunity as well? Though i believe specifically, it's civil immunity, which tbf is probably most of the cases that would arise.
Regardless it's literally enshrined in the founding papers of america, that the president is not treated any different from a normal civilian. It's a foundational part of our government.
And if you really wanted immunity. Why not provide immunity during their tenure? And not outside of it. We can't justifiably hold our president from the prospects of criminal charges, and we don't (privately), and haven't (entirely) for the past 200 years. And even if they did get charged with something, it's not like you couldn't get a pardon. That's what happened with nixon.
Here's a better question though. Why would the president ever break a law, could you provide a example where it would be obviously beneficial for the president of the US to be immune (across the board) from prosecution? Because in most cases where you would argue for it, it's already explicitly immune due to a separate exclusive immunity, rather than inclusive immunity, as this provides. At best this seems incredibly redundant, and at worst this literally removes an entire segment of checks and balances against the executive, as currently defined, it basically blanket removes a check and balance.
Why not institute some form of decorum for processing and handling criminal charges against the executive that ensure that no duties are "inhibited" without providing a total immunity, except for cases that are not currently defined. It's not like the president doesn't have any legal experts around him.
And while it's true that it's dependent on what's classified as an "official duty" the sole discretion of that is left up to the supreme court. Which removes the independent nature of the congress performing a check and balance. Especially considering the often turbulent nature of the modern supreme court.
The discretion of official duty is left up to the trails court, not the supreme court. It's literally in the ruling.
The president has always had immunity. This changes nothing.
If I order someone to be murdered in another country I can be prosecuted. If the president does it they cannot be prosecuted (if, obviously, it was for the protection of the United States). There is your example. SCOTUS didn't give the president anything. The president already had it. Because SCOTUS doesn't make law.
Have a nice day / night.
Here’s an actual lawyer doing analysis of the dissent from an actual justice. Maybe you should watch it and learn what the decision actually says about official acts
https://youtu.be/MXQ43yyJvgs?si=ZLIXDxQBJjaYEfyS
I read the decision. The dissent is so ludicrous no one takes it seriously. I've seen several discussions of lawyers breaking the decision down. The only part of the dissent that makes sense is Amy Conny Barrett's examples.