So, if the President can be charged while he's in office, does this mean the Republicans can go after Obama for things? I mean, that's what you guys are saying you support right?
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2024
85 points (78.9% liked)
politics
19144 readers
5655 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If they give the sitting president power carte blanche, doesn't that just mean that some aspect of the Biden administration will be in power forever? Since, you know, that's who would start with the power.
Civilizations, just like individuals, have a finite lifespan.
Just like individuals, the details vary from one to another. All are born at a specific moment and all then grow, but their deaths, like individual deaths, come in a myriad of ways.
The US is relatively young, but it's almost certainly not going to get a chance to peacefully grow into old age, because it's effectively riddled with cancer, which is growing and spreading almost entirely unchecked.
Giving fresh meaning to the "body politic."
That’s not scary as fuck.
Theres a strangely loyal following around the man. But let’s say he has an aneurysm and drops dead after taking office on these terms. Now what structure is the next unknown candidate moving into? Who is moving into it? It could be Bernie Sanders 2.0, which sort of defeats the purpose assuming this is all about Trump himself, that all of this is even happening simply because Trump is involved.
It’s like everyone is forgetting how fucking old Trump is. He’s old, fraying at the edges like he has Dementia (in and of itself, not in a degrees comparison to anyone else), and doesn’t appear healthy. I say this as someone who has spent decades in health care.
So they want to rebuild this infrastructure for him while dismantling base functioning of the country. The man isn’t immortal and he sure as fuck isn’t healthy. And no VP he chooses will ever have the chops to be anything, especially President, because it’s too much competition for his base hubris.
So they pave the way for dictator. The chosen dictator dies of old age and bad health. Now what?
What’s the punchline? Who is this for? It’s bizarre to think there really is no long game here, that it’s happening in the name of that one guy, but that appears to be what this is functioning on. It really is all falling apart, isn’t it?
The punchline is the government is a joke and we proved it by making a mockery of it. This is the culmination of a massive propaganda campaign to convince people that the government is inept and business is competent. It is a long con to give monied interests more power and control.
They have been using psychology against us. Propaganda becomes public relations. It feels like you are being gaslight because you are.
This would not be tolerated if it was in a personal relationship. We frown upon relationships that use manipulation and mistruths to abuse people. But for some reason it is okay if the government does it.
Politicians are free to lie, use the best psychological manipulation, and gaslight the fuck out of us because it is allowed. Just think about what kind of system we have created and how technology has influenced it.
It is past time for a new set of rules that recognizes how easily it is to manipulate people and setting the guardrails to prevent it.
What has become clear is we cannot allow the concept of decorum to mislead us. We must demand a new social contract with modern rules taking into account the reality of our world now. Anything less is conceding our rights to the monied minority who have already captured business and our government.
I'm not a fan of SCOTUS, especially right now, but it's a little too early to be getting out the pitchforks and torches. Let's see what they come back with first.
There is very little likelihood that they agree with Trump's proposal for complete immunity - it's much more likely that they try to draw the line between official and private acts, and then remand the duty of determining what buckets his acts fell into down to the lower courts.
His lawyer even admitted as Amy Coney Barrett read off his indicted acts and asked the lawyer to respond with private or official, for nearly all of them he answered private. That is a big deal.
What Trump REALLY wanted here was a delay on the proceedings until after the election, and they likely handed him that. His game plan is sickeningly obvious - run out the clock, win the presidency, quash all court cases. Continue performing and crossing things off the corrupt actions list.
He will also figure out some way to get rid of Georgia case, although it shouldn't be that way.
it’s a little too early to be getting out the pitchforks and torches
Not really; the fact that they even agreed to hear this bullshit (thus blatantly interfering in the election by delaying Trump's trial) is torch-and-pitchfork worthy by itself.
A ruling hasn't been issued yet as far as I can tell. This is just an emotional and editorial piece based on the Trump immunity case arguments. It's too early to be mad yet.
I fully expect a dissenting opinion from Alito and Thomas that attempts to retcon nominative determinism ("Donald Trump can do whatever he wants, but Joe Biden is a stinky poo poo head and must go directly to jail") into a core pillar of Constitutional originalism, but I don't think there's a majority on the court that would sign on to an opinion legitimizing drone strikes on the opposition party. I'm fairly certain the end result will be a significant narrowing of Trump's criminal exposure regarding the January 6 insurrection, but the biggest impact that the court has made with this case is dragging out the process of trying it to the point that it likely will not be decided before the election. If they help Trump run out the clock and it winds him the election, then he can instruct the DoJ to kill the case, and his toadies on the court will have handed him a win while being able to maintain the thin veneer that they're not nakedly partisan operators. If Biden wins anyways, they're not in danger of catching flak from the MAGA crowd because they will have done their part.
These things are usually telegraphed beforehand so they can gauge public reaction and adjust if necessary.
I don't think it's too early to be mad about the courts potentially legalizing presidential murder.
These things are usually telegraphed beforehand so they can gauge public reaction and adjust if necessary.
Rulings aren't adjusted based on public sentiment; That's not how the court functions. You can generally speculate with reasonable accuracy on each judges position even prior to arguments for a case and arguments give a clearer public affirmation as to their thoughts on the manner.
I don't think it's too early to be mad about the courts potentially legalizing presidential murder.
Presidents have been authorizing legalized murder since the country's inception. All this ruling will do is create a legally distinct definition between state actions and personal actions. This article is just ragebait.
Presidents have been authorizing legalized murder since the country’s inception.
Not against political rivals, what the fuck is this hyper normalization bullshit
It’s blood pressure raising clickbait. It also implies ruling on the abortion inclusion in EMTALA, which has not happened either.
I'll be mad they heard the case, but yeah, now sure what this article is really adding. We wait even longer now I guess.
This is a fucking circus
I mean - it's a little too fearful and not enough analytical
The author assumes the Court doesn't understand the consequences of what it's doing, but I really don't think that's a reasonable assumption. It's entirely possible they know exactly what they're doing.
Have you dug into any of their majority opinions? They're asinine and arguing from their desired end result 95% of the time.
the moron majority sitting on bench do know exactly what they're doing. they just dgaf about ramifications of their idiotic rulings.