this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
257 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19096 readers
4063 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court’s July ruling in Trump v United States granted Donald Trump immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken in his official capacity changes fundamentally the dynamics of the Oval Office. This decision shields a sitting president from legal accountability for official acts, enabling unlawful behavior without consequence.

Critics, including Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice, argue that this ruling provides a “how-to guide” for presidential lawbreaking.

The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority, solidified by Trump’s three appointees, has previously overturned Roe v. Wade, and now, with this immunity ruling, further consolidates presidential power. If Trump is re-elected, this immunity could embolden him to pursue aggressive policies without fear of legal repercussions, raising concerns about unchecked executive authority and the erosion of democratic checks and balances.

top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago

He's halfway there already.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So why won't Biden use this power to do anything? He's not even running for reelection so he doesn't have anything to lose.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Because the power in question is the ability to nominate judges; and if Biden were to push through with any form of reform the GOP would make such a meal of it in the media that it would all but guarantee a Trump victory.

Best chance would be to keep mum, and hope that Kamala scrapes out a decisive victory and push through reforms as a lame duck president.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

I thought the power in question was immunity from prosecution for "official acts".

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

If Trump wins our democracy is over. The way to stop this is to Vote Blue!

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I've been in Spain the past few weeks. Barcelona is a literal paradise of art, architecture, amazing food, and the most beautiful women I've ever seen. Just sayin.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

He already has the highest court in the land to hand him the presidency

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

If we don't shut the barn door, the horse could get out.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

He has taken control of the supreme court in this first term and in his next he will finish the job for all courts he has access to. If it is an official act he can do it without fear of prosecution .

[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Have you seen SCOTUS? Has. And wholly enabled by the GOP, when McConnell was Speaker.

Fuck all of them.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

And he sat a ton of federal judges...I mean it will get worse, but this ship has basically sailed.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Actively blocking appointments from one party then packing it full of another party. The blame doesn't lie solely with Trump. All of these headlines are disingenuous for so many reasons it makes me nauseous.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 week ago

scotus should be 5-4 the other way, if not for that fuckface hypocrite moscow mitch.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

Could? That’s an understatement if the year

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

If Trump wins, RFK, jr will be in charge of healthcare. Bobby is anti-vax. If you want ANY vaccinations -- if Trump wins (or otherwise games the system for a win through lawsuits, etc.) -- you better get them before Jan 20, 2025, otherwise, you might need to go to Canada/Mexico just to get a vaccination.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Similarly, with the Trump Tariffs, you better buy any tech shit you need now, or it will become impossibly unaffordable.

[–] [email protected] 93 points 1 week ago

That's literally his fucking goal. So much wishy washy bullshit language "could." How about will.

When people tell you who they are, believe them the first time.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 week ago

The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:

Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.


MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom


Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/nov/02/trump-immunity-election-supreme-court
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support