this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024

631 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19120 readers

2828 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

631

Trump is “absolutely” immune for “official acts” on Jan 6th, SCOTUS rules (www.theverge.com)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

271 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 3) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I mean... I actually agree with (aspects of) that ruling. A nation's leader is going to have to, by necessity, do some really sketchy stuff. Simply put "war"

The issue is defining what counts as an "official act" and having any kind of checks and balances on that.

For example: Let's look at the purely hypothetical example of an outgoing president engaging in a violent insurrection against the US government in an attempt to prevent losing power. Crazy, right? But, in that example, it is not at all a stretch that said former president is an enemy of the state. There is a lot of legal discussion on whether it is legal to pop them in the head without a series of trials but it is in that range where it is probably better than not to give the elected POTUS immunity in that situation.

But what if that outgoing president insisted that it was an "official act" to lead that violent insurrection? No intelligent person would at all consider that a defense.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

do some really sketchy stuff. Simply put “war”

Note that as bad as that is and as evil as it has sometimes been, it is "legal", and thus not subject to criminal prosecution. It is specifically legal for the president to do that sketchy stuff.

For an "official" act to be illegal, but not subject to prosecution just makes no sense. It shouldn't be possible for an illegal act to be "official".

Extra bonkers is the 5/4 opinion that you can't even mention official acts, like if you accept a bribe in exchange for an appointment, you can't mention the appointment while trying to prosecute the bribe.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago

The thing that bugs me is how any order given to subordinates is a use of executive power, right? So that’s immune. But say the subordinate considered refusing an unlawful order. Why, then would they decide to refuse the order when the president could also choose to pardon them for any crimes they committed during the execution of the unlawful order?

load more comments