179
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago

They won't control the House after a few official acts.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

That only applies to criminal prosecution. You really think Biden is going to off a dozen or so House members?

[-] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago

"...Enemies foreign and domestic."

[-] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago

No, because he's a coward and an appeaser.

Btw, your cope that it has to be the President specifically doing the acts is disagreed with by Sonya Sotomayor in her dissent where she states outright that this decision makes political assassination legal.

But you'd know the implications better than a SC Justice who works with the fascist members of the Court, right?

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

So Biden can officially assassinate the entire Republican side and the supreme Court and because he was president when he ordered it, it is legal?

[-] [email protected] 17 points 2 weeks ago

That's the dissent's warning.

I guess the surviving members of the Court can reopen the question!

[-] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, exactly. "They were insurrectionists bent on overthrowing our government, and it was a tough, but necessary, decision to protect the nation, which is my duty as President."

That claim isn't even entirely untrue.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

But Biden himself came out and spoke about the ruling (paraphrasing) "we need presidents to use their power with caution and respect the (self imposed) limitations of it. I'll continue to do just that. The next guy might not do so and that's concerning."

Just a big ol' shrug from Biden... "I won't do it, but he sure as hell will."

Thanks Mr.Virtue... where is all that virtue when it comes to Palestinians?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

No. It’s new, and I haven’t seen the full transcript. I’m repeating what I’ve read in the news. Do you have a link so I can learn more?

I understand how the President could theoretically order an assassination then pardon. That was a good point I read in another thread.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

https://www.supremecourt.gov

Transcripts are posted after rulings.

Or you could just read one of the many, many, many articles quoting her dissent.

Or watch a video quoting her.

https://youtu.be/IOyItzldEBM?si=7qSrhX1P6npUdj0b

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago
[-] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago
[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Not all of it, obviously. But if you want someone else to, you should consider not making them search through a different website to try to find it.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It's on the landing page, in the third "recent rulings" that helpfully even has Trump in the name, but go on.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

The standard for citations has been established a long time and there’s no good reason to change it.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago
[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Oh that’s right you have no idea what I’m referring to. My bad.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago
[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

I can understand how a person with no ability to articulate things wouldn’t grok or appreciate good citation design.

Ooh wait here we go:

LoL

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

Said the guy "groking" things

🤣

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

You’re absolutely correct. This is the part that has been left out of every news article I’ve read, and is undoubtedly the most concerning:

And some Presidential conduct-for example, speaking to and on behalf of the American people, see Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701 (2018) - certainly can qualify as official even when not obviously connected to a particular constitutional or statutory provision. For those reasons, the immunity we have recognized extends to the "outer perimeter" of the President's official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are "not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority."

So it’s not just acts committed by the President, but also ordered by the President.

It’s also vague enough that charges can get bounced around lower courts indefinitely.

Thank you again for the link. I didn’t see it when I first searched.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

It’s also vague enough that charges can get bounced around lower courts indefinitely.

Yup! It will be the 5th circuit almost certainly. It's the Republican rubber stamp circuit...

[-] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago

a man can but dream...

this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
179 points (87.1% liked)

Asklemmy

42614 readers
656 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS