this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
1349 points (99.3% liked)

News

23376 readers
2945 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago (6 children)

The Court's decision just removes criminal liability for the President for such official acts. It does not render them legal or proper.

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago (1 children)

TokenBoomer didn't say how the Justices were to be removed.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

👿

Edit: I am not advocating for violence………………. . . yet.

[–] HonorableScythe@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is it technically murder if the president orders it?

[–] Frost752@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Its assassination which to me, sounds like an official act.

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Which, per the Justices in question, is totally legal and cool if the President does it.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Let the 6 member court deliberate this executive decision. Democrats need to stop asking for permission. Republicans don’t. They act, then apologize for overstepping. Democrats need to stop being defensive and start being offensive.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They haven’t apologized in a long time

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The Democrats should have taken the gloves off after McConnell refused to confirm Garland and ended the filibuster.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago

The Democrats should have taken the gloves off after McConnell refused to confirm Garland and ended the filibuster.

since the Democrats don't have a time machine, I just want them to learn from their mistakes. They're still using the same strategy of when they go low, we go high -and we lose.

[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Also, the reality is these rulings are only when it benefits whomever pays them the most.

You'd have to convince Putin and a lot of trillion dollar corps that own these justices first. Which seems very unlikely.

He could sacrifice himself for the greater good and commit illegal acts to wipe the SCOTUS and start again with people that will hold him accountable for his illegal acts. He has a unique opportunity that will go away either through reform or the dismantling of US democracy. Either way, the opportunity is now or never

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The scorched earth approach would cause problems for Kamala's campaign. After the election however there are a couple months where Biden is still in charge and could go scorched earth with impunity (which would also demonstrate how stupid that system is as well).

[–] warbond@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't removing criminal liability basically make it legal?

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, there are a lot of things that are not legal but also not criminal. Here, the difference is whether or not the President is empowered to take such action. Similarly, the President cannot enact a new tax law or bind the nation to a treaty as he lacks the legal authority to do so, but attempting to do so wouldn’t (under some scenarios) be an otherwise criminal act.

[–] warbond@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Fair point, it's not a de facto legalization. However, I have to question the intent behind allowing for such varied interpretations of presidential immunity. Confining it to official or unofficial leaves an insane amount of wiggle room, when they could have decided to allow for real scrutiny within the context of an action and whose purposes it actually serves.

As it stands, a conversation between a president and election officials, regardless of context, is an official act. Presidents are allowed to talk to people in an official capacity, so regardless of what is said during those conversations, it's completely fine? Why not provide any guidelines on what constitutes an official act? It's just too broad for anything other than a "I'm sure people will just be cool" acceptance, which is exactly why we find ourselves in this situation to begin with.

(Edited to add what I'm told is called a "para-graph")

[–] TunaCowboy@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Let's see SCOTUS enforce a ruling.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 points 3 months ago

IMHO that's even worse. "We know it's wrong, but we actually think it's necessary and okay" sort of energy.