• Meltrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Blows my mind how this isn’t just the most cut and dry logical answer ever.

    Is the president immune from prosecution under the law? No. No one is. That’s the point of the laws. If a leader is fully immune they are a dictator.

    And fuck it, even if you’re insane and think Trump would be a good King of the US, if this gets passed then there’s no precedent stopping Biden saying at the end of his term “no, I’m staying, screw you”. That is terrible regardless of your political standing.

    • MedicsOfAnarchy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      11 months ago

      Screw waiting for an election. If the SC states that a sitting President is immune from law, the current President should simply point this out to everybody (so we’re clear here) and cancel the upcoming election. Leave plenty of time for the SC to backpedal so the elections actually do happen, but then Trump can be prosecuted.

      • Jaysyn@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Or even better, the sitting President can start hunting Supreme Court Justices for sport.

        You know, since there’s no law saying he can’t.

        • Kage520@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Well damn if that’s the new job expectation then I really think the president is too old for duty. I vote for The Rock.

          • TechyDad@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            Well, if the President is immune then he can always appoint a SCOTUS Hunter cabinet position.

    • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      I mean, if we’re gonna have a king at all, I’d vote Charles III over this POS. And that’s saying something.

      Maybe we could just rescind our independence. Our problems become shared problems. Nothing really improves, but it becomes more socially acceptable for me and the boys to cry into pints every night.

    • SeedyOne@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s indeed a bit crazy but it highlights a need we have in legislation to properly spell out enforcement. Gone are the days when it was enough to have a gentleman’s agreement to report and act on certain transgressions. Now, sadly, the default action is to ignore and deny until the issue goes away and it works far too often.

  • pm_me_your_quackers@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Saw a thread yesterday where people were happy cause they think the Supreme Court is going to tell him to get fucked.

    I say I wish I still had that child-like optimism.

    They only fuck poor people.

      • evatronic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        On the flip side, Jack Smith has been incredibly thorough. He wouldn’t ask if he didn’t have a backup plan.

        • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          What backup plan is possible if scotus grants him blank immunity? I think his thinking was just to speed things up since it’s going to end up there anyways.

          • Kainsley@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yep, this is 100% about getting ahead of all of the delays that trumps team will seek to drag this out past the election.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Why would they “cover” for Trump? Do you imagine they feel beholden to him for appointing them? They are not; Past, present or future. They’ve already refused to hear Trump related cases, and that hurt him.

        And yes, even if it goes against him, they will keep the scope of the ruling dialed in tight. That’s how law and judgments work at this highest level. And should.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Look, I’m hating the conservative bent in this Court, and they seem wildly biased, but y’all are off base in many ways.

      Not all their judgements are conservative. They told Alabama to fuck themselves over voting districts. They refused to hear a “pray away the gay” case yesterday, deferring to a lower court’s opinion. Been a couple more that surprised me, but the cases escape me ATM. Didn’t they refuse to hear a Trump related case recently? This might be what I’m thinking of.

      The other weird thing I see all over lemmy, not your post!, is the idea that because Trump appointed them, they’re somehow beholden to him. Nope. That’s the whole idea behind lifetime appointments. A Justice can tell anyone and everyone to fuck themselves without fear of reprisal, current or future.

      tl;dr: The current Court is conservative, not partisan. For this very particular job, that’s a real difference.

      • Drusas@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yes, but granting the president too much immunity lessens the relative power of the Supreme Court. They would not want that.

  • Altofaltception@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Can you imagine the precedent this would set?

    “I want to be a dictator. Just kidding. Nanananana you can’t touch me”

    • AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s a dangerous crossroads. The precedent would break this country…

      And 3 of the judges making the decision were appointed by the guy on trial. Clarence Thomas is openly corrupt. And I wouldn’t depend on Roberts for any my moral backbone.

      • Omega@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’ve been pondering for a long time about how SCOTUS and more than 1/3 of the Senate could essentially take over the country over night. That case where they decided whether a state could overturn election results without federal interference gave me worry. But luckily most of them weren’t that radical. At least not right now.

      • Jaysyn@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’m sure they have no desire to give Dark Brandon carte blanche to whatever the fuck he wants to do.

        • AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Of course not, but that’s not really how they think. They tend to do what’s best for them now, and then ignore the rules in the future when it hurts them.

          Rules for thee not for me.

          • Kainsley@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Declaring that the sitting president can essentially act as a dictator is most definitely bad for them right now lol

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Clarence Thomas is openly corrupt. And I wouldn’t depend on Roberts for any my moral backbone.

        Right there ya go. OTOH, I don’t give a shit if he appointed them. They owe him nothing, he cannot do anything to them. It just doesn’t work that way.

        Afraid this might be a close one.

    • bradv@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nothing in the constitution that says we can’t have a dictator.

      • Supreme Court, probably