this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
287 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
69726 readers
3611 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Another waste of our time and money. It's a bill to try and force companies to remove content they don't like...or else.
This will be shot down in court (again), and since the platforms themselves will be responsible for removing content, will not be forced to comply. It's unconstitutional and unenforceable, so just a big ass waste of everyone's fucking time. So dumb.
Even progressive darlen AOC voted for this bullshit. You know who won't Sanders.
You’re assuming the courts will shoot it down. That’s a big assumption these days.
Show me one case where a judge has ruled an unconstitutional thing is suddenly constitutional in all these court cases. Even SCOTUS isnt playing that game.
When they ruled he has immunity. And in may well hear the supreme courts ruling on the legitimacy of the fourteenth amendment. Then there’s Eileen Cannon.
I think presidents having immunity is essential to have a functioning democracy. Otherwise the party currently in power could arrest the previous president for something they allegedly did while in power and would set a bad precedent. I think it is best for the presidents to be immune unless impeached by both the house and senate for something particularly heinous. And yes, Trump should probably have been impeached already after the insurrection, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't just willy-nilly arrest some ex president. There is separation of power for a good reason: to not give too much power to any branch of government.
No.
Of course even the president has a right to due process, but no. If the president commits treason, he doesn't get to be immune to that. A trial is warranted and an arrest if found guilty is correct.
Yes, corruption could hypothetically rig such a trial. But a president immune from the consequences of his actions means there only needs to be one person corrupted to ruin a whole branch of government, instead of the hundreds it would take Congress to rig a trial.
Thanks for the constructive feedback. If the American system would have been functional enough to actually impeach and indict him then we wouldn't have this conversation right now as his immunity would have been stripped. That's impeachments whole point – to hold people in power, who are otherwise immune from prosecution accountable (at least that's how I understand it), but I totally get where you're coming from.
The trial is called impeachment proceedings. We already have this covered.
Here's the text.
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Impeachment is important and it should've happened, but the senate literally can't do anything except remove him from office, and the impeachment text specifically allows for regular law to also apply to whoever got impeached.
So no, we do not have this covered by impeachment, and no former president is immune from regular legal proceedings.
Current presidents are, though, through supreme court precedent and the self-pardon. Former presidents should not automatically get this benefit though.
Hard fucking NO. If the don’t break the laws they don’t have to worry about being perused by the other parties. People fucking died for this.
Kinks: the taste of boot leather
Presidential immunity. It's a blanket statement of "you're wrong" to everything you could possibly follow up with attempting to rebutt that statement.
Presidential immunity doesn't extend to every other person acting at the direction of the President. In fact, it extends to nobody. It may not even work if prosecuted, because that's not what SCOTUS actually said. They only said that president couldn't essentially be held liable for presidential actions, and then didn't clarify exactly what those were. They intentionally didn't specifically make a list of this actions, which depending on your viewpoint, means it's everything, or nothing.
Oh I like that. Schrodinger's box with presidential immunity in it.
At least two members of SCOTUS are definitely playing that game
Two members that know what would happen to them if they fracture codified law and intentionally do not. 300 million of us vs thousands in government.
Well not 300 million of us, since seemingly every registered Republican in the nation is also ecstatic about tearing the constitution to pieces. And they’re nearly the only ones among us who actually choose to own guns and have the capacity to actually do anything about it.
Be pedantic all you want. Millions versus thousands wins.
Allowing trump to run again after inciting an insurrection?
Again, not been a court case. If he tries, it will be shot down. There is no wiggle room for bullshit in the constitution about this.
Yes there has been a court case, Colorado didn't want to put Trump on the ballot because of the insurrection clause, it went up to the supreme Court and they said it was A-OK.
Edit, link: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/supreme-court-rules-states-cannot-remove-trump-from-ballot-for-insurrection/
Banning abortion?
Not in the constitution. That was a Supreme Court judgement (Roe v Wade) that was overturned.
Roe v Wade determined that the right to privacy was in the Constitution (due process clause of 4th Amendment) and that Texas laws restricting it were unconstitutional.
States restricting abortion was the unconstitutional thing which was suddenly Constitutional again after Dobbs.
Yes, that is how Supreme Court decisions work. Did you imagine that once a thing was ruled unconstitutional, or vice versa, that it could never be reversed?
No, I didn't imagine that.
Did you read the direct thread to my comment?