Blows my mind how this isn't just the most cut and dry logical answer ever.
Is the president immune from prosecution under the law? No. No one is. That's the point of the laws. If a leader is fully immune they are a dictator.
And fuck it, even if you're insane and think Trump would be a good King of the US, if this gets passed then there's no precedent stopping Biden saying at the end of his term "no, I'm staying, screw you". That is terrible regardless of your political standing.
Screw waiting for an election. If the SC states that a sitting President is immune from law, the current President should simply point this out to everybody (so we're clear here) and cancel the upcoming election. Leave plenty of time for the SC to backpedal so the elections actually do happen, but then Trump can be prosecuted.
Or even better, the sitting President can start hunting Supreme Court Justices for sport.
You know, since there's no law saying he can't.
Well damn if that's the new job expectation then I really think the president is too old for duty. I vote for The Rock.
Well, if the President is immune then he can always appoint a SCOTUS Hunter cabinet position.
Deepfake Biden into one of the adaptations of The Most Dangerous Game and we'll have a movie night
King of the US
If it's going to be anyone, it's gotta be King Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho.
I mean, if we're gonna have a king at all, I'd vote Charles III over this POS. And that's saying something.
Maybe we could just rescind our independence. Our problems become shared problems. Nothing really improves, but it becomes more socially acceptable for me and the boys to cry into pints every night.
It's indeed a bit crazy but it highlights a need we have in legislation to properly spell out enforcement. Gone are the days when it was enough to have a gentleman's agreement to report and act on certain transgressions. Now, sadly, the default action is to ignore and deny until the issue goes away and it works far too often.
Our current law system also vastly benefits those who can spend millions on lawyers.
Saw a thread yesterday where people were happy cause they think the Supreme Court is going to tell him to get fucked.
I say I wish I still had that child-like optimism.
They only fuck poor people.
Look, I'm hating the conservative bent in this Court, and they seem wildly biased, but y'all are off base in many ways.
Not all their judgements are conservative. They told Alabama to fuck themselves over voting districts. They refused to hear a "pray away the gay" case yesterday, deferring to a lower court's opinion. Been a couple more that surprised me, but the cases escape me ATM. Didn't they refuse to hear a Trump related case recently? This might be what I'm thinking of.
The other weird thing I see all over lemmy, not your post!, is the idea that because Trump appointed them, they're somehow beholden to him. Nope. That's the whole idea behind lifetime appointments. A Justice can tell anyone and everyone to fuck themselves without fear of reprisal, current or future.
tl;dr: The current Court is conservative, not partisan. For this very particular job, that's a real difference.
"I want to be a dictator. Just kidding. Nanananana you can't touch me"
It's a dangerous crossroads. The precedent would break this country...
And 3 of the judges making the decision were appointed by the guy on trial. Clarence Thomas is openly corrupt. And I wouldn't depend on Roberts for any my moral backbone.
I've been pondering for a long time about how SCOTUS and more than 1/3 of the Senate could essentially take over the country over night. That case where they decided whether a state could overturn election results without federal interference gave me worry. But luckily most of them weren't that radical. At least not right now.
I'm sure they have no desire to give Dark Brandon carte blanche to whatever the fuck he wants to do.
Of course not, but that's not really how they think. They tend to do what's best for them now, and then ignore the rules in the future when it hurts them.
Rules for thee not for me.
Declaring that the sitting president can essentially act as a dictator is most definitely bad for them right now lol
Clarence Thomas is openly corrupt. And I wouldn't depend on Roberts for any my moral backbone.
Right there ya go. OTOH, I don't give a shit if he appointed them. They owe him nothing, he cannot do anything to them. It just doesn't work that way.
Afraid this might be a close one.
Nothing in the constitution that says we can't have a dictator.
Supreme Court, probably
Fine! The moment they rule this, Biden should step up and take the position. See how quickly they backpedal.
This is so true. I’m just so happy he hasn’t taken Trump up on all of the things that Trump says that he would be able to do if reelected.
Blows my mind how this isn't just the most cut and dry logical answer ever.
Is the president immune from prosecution under the law? No. No one is. That's the point of the laws. If a leader is fully immune they are a dictator.
And fuck it, even if you're insane and think Trump would be a good King of the US, if this gets passed then there's no precedent stopping Biden saying at the end of his term "no, I'm staying, screw you". That is terrible regardless of your political standing.
Screw waiting for an election. If the SC states that a sitting President is immune from law, the current President should simply point this out to everybody (so we're clear here) and cancel the upcoming election. Leave plenty of time for the SC to backpedal so the elections actually do happen, but then Trump can be prosecuted.
Or even better, the sitting President can start hunting Supreme Court Justices for sport.
You know, since there's no law saying he can't.
Well damn if that's the new job expectation then I really think the president is too old for duty. I vote for The Rock.
Well, if the President is immune then he can always appoint a SCOTUS Hunter cabinet position.
Deepfake Biden into one of the adaptations of The Most Dangerous Game and we'll have a movie night
If it's going to be anyone, it's gotta be King Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho.
I mean, if we're gonna have a king at all, I'd vote Charles III over this POS. And that's saying something.
Maybe we could just rescind our independence. Our problems become shared problems. Nothing really improves, but it becomes more socially acceptable for me and the boys to cry into pints every night.
It's indeed a bit crazy but it highlights a need we have in legislation to properly spell out enforcement. Gone are the days when it was enough to have a gentleman's agreement to report and act on certain transgressions. Now, sadly, the default action is to ignore and deny until the issue goes away and it works far too often.
Our current law system also vastly benefits those who can spend millions on lawyers.
Saw a thread yesterday where people were happy cause they think the Supreme Court is going to tell him to get fucked.
I say I wish I still had that child-like optimism.
They only fuck poor people.
Look, I'm hating the conservative bent in this Court, and they seem wildly biased, but y'all are off base in many ways.
Not all their judgements are conservative. They told Alabama to fuck themselves over voting districts. They refused to hear a "pray away the gay" case yesterday, deferring to a lower court's opinion. Been a couple more that surprised me, but the cases escape me ATM. Didn't they refuse to hear a Trump related case recently? This might be what I'm thinking of.
The other weird thing I see all over lemmy, not your post!, is the idea that because Trump appointed them, they're somehow beholden to him. Nope. That's the whole idea behind lifetime appointments. A Justice can tell anyone and everyone to fuck themselves without fear of reprisal, current or future.
tl;dr: The current Court is conservative, not partisan. For this very particular job, that's a real difference.
Can you imagine the precedent this would set?
"I want to be a dictator. Just kidding. Nanananana you can't touch me"
It's a dangerous crossroads. The precedent would break this country...
And 3 of the judges making the decision were appointed by the guy on trial. Clarence Thomas is openly corrupt. And I wouldn't depend on Roberts for any my moral backbone.
I've been pondering for a long time about how SCOTUS and more than 1/3 of the Senate could essentially take over the country over night. That case where they decided whether a state could overturn election results without federal interference gave me worry. But luckily most of them weren't that radical. At least not right now.
I'm sure they have no desire to give Dark Brandon carte blanche to whatever the fuck he wants to do.
Of course not, but that's not really how they think. They tend to do what's best for them now, and then ignore the rules in the future when it hurts them.
Rules for thee not for me.
Declaring that the sitting president can essentially act as a dictator is most definitely bad for them right now lol
Right there ya go. OTOH, I don't give a shit if he appointed them. They owe him nothing, he cannot do anything to them. It just doesn't work that way.
Afraid this might be a close one.
Nothing in the constitution that says we can't have a dictator.
Fine! The moment they rule this, Biden should step up and take the position. See how quickly they backpedal.
This is so true. I’m just so happy he hasn’t taken Trump up on all of the things that Trump says that he would be able to do if reelected.
If they give him immunity I'm fucking rioting
You and everybody else that didn't vote for that sweat stain of a human being.
We'll miss you, Hombre.
No need to riot. General strike my man.
Brace yourself for legalization of dictatorship (offer valid only for R candidates).