No one even thought to ask about it in the debate.
Hopefully Harris will clean the shit from the court not too long after she gets in
Because nobody’s taken advantage of it. It was written for trump. This meme will age like roadkill.
I mean, have you followed what’s been happening in the last two months?
I’ve aged 28 years.
Right, but this is how we slip into authoritarianism. Lose on all fronts over and over and even if we walk away from a battle they’ve gained ground.
I care. As far as I’m concerned, we’ve already entered fascism with that decision. We have no way of knowing that ONLY Donald Trump would abuse that power.
Jesus fucking Christ. That was only two months ago? Fuck you, Time, can you just be consistent for like even a second?
Kamala did bring it up in the debate. And that was about it.
So Biden could assassinate Trump and the courts just shrug?
The ruling is vague enough that any specific cases can be decided based on the court’s political preferences.
No, he can’t. It would turn out that isn’t an official act, because reasons.
So, kinda. The ruling did have more nuance than a lot of people take from it, but it’s still not a good ruling by any means.
The president has absolute personal immunity for core constitutional acts, and the presumption of immunity for official acts.
That means that you can’t sue Biden for vetoing a bill, or other things defined in the constitution. That doesn’t mean you can’t sue the office of the president, but that you can’t sue the individual.
The next part is that the courts need to assume that there’s immunity for anything done “as the president” unless the prosecution can argue that not having immunity couldn’t possibly infringe on a power of the president, and you can’t use the presidents motivation to make that case.So the president talks to the justice department about what they can do to sway the election for him: you can only talk about the impact of holding the president liable for talking to the justice department about elections.
You can’t talk about the president assassinating a political rival because that introduces their motive. “Would the office of the president be hindered by holding them personally liable for using the constitutional power to command the military to target a threat to the country”.
Trumps family could sue, but Biden wouldn’t be liable, only the executive branch.
Step one, remove the opposition justices on the Supreme Court and install your own. Step two, have them decide what you did was lawful.
The entire point is that Biden won’t, though. It’s just more of the rules for thee, not for me shit that fascists love.
That’s the way it’s been for a while now. There’s so many crises that we just run to the new one every few days, forgetting about the old one and never actually resolving any of them. Considering how complaisant the burnout makes us, I’d imagine it’s not entirely happenstance that things are so hectic.
I think everyone is waiting to see how the “official duties” part shakes out.
It doesn’t matter. You act as though that will temper the ruling but really it is an escape hatch if a Democrat trys to use it. Kings aren’t kings just because the people go along with it. Nobility build the infrastructure then fight over who gets the hot seat.
I agree that the ruling creates a major issue but the way you’re talking makes it seem like you don’t recognize that presidents have always (certainly in our lifetimes) been above the law. That was clearly not the intent of the founding fathers but it is also clear that the modern entity we call the US government never had any intention of handling things in a different way. I’m not sure exactly when we crossed that line but it was well before this Supreme Court ruling, that much is certain.
You are way down playing what this means. They are telegraphing their entire intent. Trump and his GOP are not run of the mill. It’s almost painful to have to spell this out again and again.
The stance you’re are taking is exactly how this power grab by the courts becomes tolerated. They are taking power from the people and claiming it as their own. This can’t be understated.
The stance you’re are taking is exactly how this power grab by the courts becomes tolerated.
OK then don’t tolerate it. Or perhaps it isn’t that simple and that’s the point.
You can act like your superior insight into our predicament makes a difference but does it really? From where I sit it looks like you’re doing the same thing I am, albeit more pretentiously, and that is lamenting the fact that we don’t have an appreciable impact on the situation.
They want to ask about policy positions, which immunity is not.
It’s not absolute but… Yeah.
