That's not from the supreme court ruling. That's an opinion piece. It holds no meaning over the ruling. Political fear mongering.

But notably, it does shield them from prosecution for crimes which are tangentially related to their official duties. For example, granting a presidential pardon is an official duty. Taking a bribe in exchange for that pardon would be a crime. But now the president is allowed to openly and blatantly take that bribe, because the bribe is tangential to their official duty, and they are therefore shielded from prosecution.

Not at all. While granting a pardon is an official duty, taking a bribe in exchange for a pardon is a criminal act. The decision does not shield the President from prosecution for such criminal conduct. Criminal acts are just as prosecutable as there were prior.

Excerpt from the ruling:

“As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. The principles we set out in Clinton v. Jones confirm as much. When Paula Jones brought a civil lawsuit against then-President Bill Clinton for acts he allegedly committed prior to his Presidency, we rejected his argument that he enjoyed temporary immunity from the lawsuit while serving as President. 520 U. S., at 684. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decision making is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Id., at 694, and n. 19.”

Unofficial conduct includes taking bribes.

Many experts disagree with the second half of your sentence, because ordering an assassination could easily be argued to be an official duty; After all, the POTUS is the commander in chief of the military. According to this ruling, ordering it illegally would be protected, because the illegality is tied to the official duty.

"Many experts" isn't someone I can talk with or argue against. They're just weasel words.

Ordering an assassination is illegal. It violates the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution (as they deprive persons of "life, liberty, or property" without fair legal procedures and protections). as well as Executive Order 12333 in which assassination is explicitly deemed illegal.

Who decides what is “official,” or “unofficial?” Oh, that’s right, Federalist Society planted judges.

The distinction between official and unofficial acts is largely guided by precedents set by the Supreme Court. Cases like Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) and Clinton v. Jones (1997) provide frameworks for understanding the scope of presidential immunity and the nature of official duties. It's not just something they drum up out of nowhere. Judicial review and precedent are used for building out what constitutes official duties.

This is exactly why i'm asking people to read the ruling that I linked for your convenience It doesn't even talk about bribery. At all. People are just saying things without doing any effort to source/reference/research what they're talking about.

Hey so there's some echo-chambery stuff going on in Lemmy right now, so I want to provide some clarification:

1. The court decision did not create a new law. It provided clarity on laws already in place. Presidential immunity is not a new thing. It's a well established power. See: Clinton v. Jones (1997), United States v. Nixon (1974), United States v. Burr (1807), Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

2. The court decision does not expand on the law either, it clarifies that:

The President has some immunity for official acts to allow them to perform their duties without undue interference. However, this immunity does not cover:

• Unofficial acts or personal behavior.

• Criminal acts, (to include assassination).

The decision reaffirms that the President can be held accountable for actions outside the scope of their official duties. It does not grant blanket immunity for all actions or allow the President to act as a dictator.

People who are giving opinions based on what they read on Lemmy instead of going and reading the supreme court opinion that is totally online and right here for you to reference are spreading misinformation and fear.

It's called Sodium in English because an English chemist Sir Humphrey Davy discovered it & named it "Sodium" He was able to isolate it via separation of caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) and therefore named it after the caustic soda "soda-ium". A few years later, a German chemist (Ludwig Wilhelm Gilbert) was able to isolate it and named it "Natronium" Just under a decade later, Jöns Jacob Berzelius coined the term "Natrium" as he felt the name "Natronium" was too lengthy to catch on.

As to exactly why the earlier term was not respected is likely due to nationalism. During the earlier 1800's a lot of countries were desperately trying to take claim for various rapid advancements in chemistry, physics, mathematics, and medicine. Getting to have the name that "your guy" coined was largely bent around national pride.

10/10 chain jerking

Would it be legal for Biden to assassinate them? Asking for a friend.

I realize you're likely being rhetorical, but in case you or any other users are actually curious, the fact of the matter is that criminal acts, including assassination, are not protected by presidential immunity. Here's a breakdown:

Official Acts are things the President does as part of their job, like signing laws, directing the military, and managing foreign policy.

Criminal Acts are illegal activities, and they are not protected by presidential immunity. Assassination is definitely illegal and falls under this category.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process of law, meaning that the government cannot deprive anyone of "life, liberty, or property" without fair legal procedures and protections. Additionally, Executive Order 12333, explicitly prohibit the U.S. government from engaging in assassination.

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982): The case granted the President immunity from civil damages for official acts, but clarified that this doesn't apply to everything a President does. Unofficial acts, like crimes, are not protected.

In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): The Supreme Court ruled that President Truman's seizure of steel mills was unconstitutional. Even though it was for "official use" and it was for "the good of the country" it was nevertheless deemed not part of his presidential powers and therefore not covered.

Presidential immunity protects certain official actions, but it doesn't cover illegal activities. Assassination would be an unofficial act and is definitely prosecutable.

Hackers mad

Hackers mad

Hackers mad

Steve Harvey: "We asked 100 people, what is the male reproductive organ?"

Contestant: "The penis"

SH: "A WUH... HUH??" audience erupts into laughter Steve Harvey grabs onto podium to support himself laughter gets even louder

SH: O lordy... one man goes into cardiac arrest and many others begin vomiting profusely from laughing too hard

SH: YOU PEOPLE NEED HELP the Earth shatters and Satan rises from the underworld to claim unworthy souls the universe begins rapidly closing in on itself

SH: (putting on a weary voice) Survey says... the board shows 100 for "penis" Harvey is able to get off one more shocked look before existence as we know it comes to an end

SEO is what is killing Google. Companies designing shit websites designed to highjack search results is a huge issue.

Hi, professional DNS engineer here! if anyone has any questions about the inner workings of DNS or top level domains, ask away! (THIS IS MY MOMENT)