this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
457 points (96.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35907 readers
1287 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

If inciting an insurrection towards their own government is an action without legal repercussions, I don't see how the law would be less lenient about straight up firing a gun at an opponent.

I by no means want any party to resolve to violent tactics. So even though I play with the thought, I really don't want anything like it to happen. I am just curious if it's actually the case that a sitting president has now effectively a licence to kill.

What am I missing?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] razorwiregoatlick@lemmy.world 58 points 4 months ago (4 children)

They did not say that he was immune. They said that the president has immunity for certain acts. What acts? Whatever acts they, the SCOTUS, decide they should be immune from. So Biden could shoot Trump dead but the court would rule that that was illegal because some bullshit reason.

[–] timewarp@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So... Biden could target SCOTUS as being treasonous & appoint new justices under immunity with the three remaining liberal justices quickly ruling he has executive privilege to do so?

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Yes. I joked about this scenario when I didn't think the scotus would hand down such a fucked up ruling, but we're halfway to some really funny shit.

[–] card797@champserver.net 16 points 4 months ago

That court also wouldn't be able to have the president arrested. He would need to be impeached and removed from office before any of that could happen.

[–] s38b35M5@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So Biden could shoot Trump dead but the court would rule that that was illegal because some bullshit reason.

Ah! But with what evidence? They also ruled that presidential conduct (paraphrasing here) can't be used as evidence.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

True, but they are also the ones who decide what they can and cannot do without recourse from anyone else (because we need 2/3 of Congress to impeach which is a non-starter.) so they can rule one way and then rule another for whatever reason they want.

Our "justices" (/vomit...) don't have to have any qualifications, we just pay lip service to norms so we (read: the federalist society) choose vaguely "acceptable" people to be justices, but you or I could be one too which really means that they have almost nothing to do with the actual law. We're a fucking joke.

[–] s38b35M5@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We're a fucking joke.

But nobody is laughing. I'm shivering...

[–] MeThisGuy@feddit.nl 1 points 4 months ago

pretty sure the rest of the world is having a good laugh

[–] callouscomic@lemm.ee 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think that "some bullshit reason" would be murder.

People have gotten fucking ridiculous lately.

[–] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 28 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They said "some bullshit reason" because the same logic would very clearly not be applied to trump if he were to do the same. Think a bit. It's ok.

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The bullshit in this example is not that they would find Biden guilty but that they could/would find Trump innocent.

That would be bullshit. Biden killing Trump being ruled as murder would not be bullshit, it'd be accurate.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Guilt or innocence is irrelevant in this case. The only thing that matters is whether the President was acting in an "official" capacity or not. If a Republican does it, it was official. If a Democrat does, it was not.

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I agree, that's how it would go. But you can't start advocating for a Democratic president to murder his opponent with official impunity, just because of some politically motivated bullshit SCOTUS ruling. That way total anarchy and facism lies.

If people start calling for that, then it's no better than the shit show of a second Trump presidency may be. The rule of law matters, and it should apply to all equally. If Trump did it and got away with it, it would be bullshit, he should not get away with it. If Biden did it, he should not get away with it either, whether it's "official" or not. Murder is murder.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You're correct, and I wasn't saying otherwise. I'm just pointing out that the corrupt SCOTUS has set themselves up as the arbiter of consequences for the President. They can protect or not on a whim, with no way for anyone else to challenge them.

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Agreed. It's properly fucked up. Genuinely worried about the state of the States in the next few years if the Dems don't get their acts together and win in November (and even if they do, tbh)

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Same. Dems winning presidential elections feels like a drowning person who's desperately thrashing around managing to get a lungful of air before sinking again.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

If people start calling for that, then it’s no better than the shit show of a second Trump presidency may be.

I cannot disagree more strongly. Biden has this chance to RESTORE rule of law, which SCOTUS has already shredded. I will take the risk of Biden becoming a dictator over the near certainty that Trump will.