this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024

817 points (95.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27036 readers

1306 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

candyman337

[email protected]

817

Is anyone else highly concerned with the SCOTUS ruling that the POTUS is immune from criminal liability? (lemmy.autism.place)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

357 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sorry if this is not the proper community for this question. Please let me know if I should post this question elsewhere.

So like, I'm not trying to be hyperbolic or jump on some conspiracy theory crap, but this seems like very troubling news to me. My entire life, I've been under the impression that no one is technically/officially above the law in the US, especially the president. I thought that was a hard consensus among Americans regardless of party. Now, SCOTUS just made the POTUS immune to criminal liability.

The president can personally violate any law without legal consequences. They also already have the ability to pardon anyone else for federal violations. The POTUS can literally threaten anyone now. They can assassinate anyone. They can order anyone to assassinate anyone, then pardon them. It may even grant complete immunity from state laws because if anyone tries to hold the POTUS accountable, then they can be assassinated too. This is some Putin-level dictator stuff.

I feel like this is unbelievable and acknowledge that I may be wayyy off. Am I misunderstanding something?? Do I need to calm down?

(page 5) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

No dude, it's only the most talked about things right now.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

No it doesn’t concern me. I have no illusions that the top of society is full of people with unfair power over me. And it’s relieving that the law finally reflects the reality of the situation.

The only thing worse than a nightmare is a nightmare with lipstick on.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

This could easily lead to not firing the public servants that are not loyal enough, but outright assassinating them at best, or just Trump keeping the presidency (dictatorship) until the end of his life instead of holding elections at worst.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (12 children)

He is only immune from acts that fall within his job description. If you want to criminally charge the president for one of his actions, you will have to convince a judge that the act was outside his job description.

SCOTUS didn't grant his immunity requests. They sent the case back to the trial court and told them "make sure you specify that this action was outside the scope of his official duties before you make your ruling".

That's it. SCOTUS didn't do him any favors.

load more comments (12 replies)

load more comments