There is nothing to fucking scrutinize!
Can a president break the law?
No. End of.
This decision should have taken all of 30 seconds weeks ago and been unanimous.
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
79 points (97.6% liked)
News
21850 readers
3223 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.
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
This discussion should have been laughed at and never picked up.
Exactly. This should never have gone in front of the court at all. There's just no question here. If the court rules in favor of Trump, Biden can legally assassinate him. I doubt he would, but I also doubt SCOTUS wants to grant Biden or any potential future Democrat that power.
They're doing this to delay, that's all.
Biden can assassinate SCOTUS judges too.
Honestly might shoot up his popularity if he did that after a, "President is immune" verdict
I don't like the idea of politicians swaying judges, but it would be nice if someone told the Supreme Court that Biden has a number of teams standing by to create vacancies there should it be determined that it is, in fact, not illegal. It doesn't have to be true, mind you, but it's definitely something they should be thinking about when they make their specious claims.
Ironically these conservative justices were laughed at and never picked up as babies, which contributes to them becoming the spiteful, immoral bastards we see today.
Yes yes, but what if he's a Republican president? I'm gonna have to really mull this over and see if there's any possible way I can make this seem legitimate...
"Hmm, we have this tradition of pardoning the former president for acts committed as part of his role as president. We did this because of our firm belief...that the president...couldn't be charged for breaking the law?" Yep, sounds legit.
"We're writing a rule for the ages," conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, said during the arguments.
That's not your fucking job! You are not legislators, you aren't there to invent laws that you think would be a good idea. If there isn't already a legal basis for Trump's presidential immunity to all prosecution, your job is to tell him to fuck off and throw the case back to the lower courts.
"Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. For 234 years of American history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts," Sauer told the justices
So, the presidency as we know it can't exist if we continue as we have for the past 234 years? For fuck sake, do you even listen to yourself when you say this shit? I would hope not since you're openly defending the right of the president to commit treason and murder with impunity. And yet, here we are, with those arguments actually being considered by the Court.
What gets me is their whole reason for overturning Roe v Wade was because they claimed their job wasn't to legislate from the bench. The only thing the current SCOTUS does consistently is fuck the people.
“Scrutinize”. More like political theater. This is all about delaying their findings until post-election. What a joke.
I really fucking hate this Roberts angle - 'but but what about using prosecutions to abuse a former president?' As if there weren't plenty of tools in the legal system to mitigate that possibility, AND as if history hasn't already shown that the DOJ leans heavily, HEAVILY on the side of caution when considering legal action against a president.
And like congress hasn't made that a pastime for the last 20 years.
Yeah, like where is the example of such abuse? Is this not the first such prosecution in American history? Seems absurd to me to suggest that there might be a problem of abuse, or that the criminal justice system doesn't already set a high enough standard for conviction generally, or that this case doesn't rise to a level of severity justifying prosecution.