this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
662 points (95.2% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26980 readers
1389 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 !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, 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 spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. 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 info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 202 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Nah man, this is very concerning. You don't need to calm down; I think everyone else is too fuckin calm about it.

What I want from anyone supporting this decision is a single example of a situation where the President would need to break the law in an official capacity. I want just one. I'll not get it, but I'm gonna keep demanding it.

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 63 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I've seen dozens of people, including myself, wondering why there's no one in the streets over this, it's a long weekend for a lot of people too.
Honestly, DC is a 10 hour drive for me. If I didn't think I'd be the lone idiot protesting I'd be on my way because I'm off until Monday.
But there's safety in numbers. One person in the street will get arrested and end up as a footnote in the local papers, a million people might make them notice.

[–] Today@lemmy.world 37 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I've had plenty of days where i wondered of it was worth my kids living without me to live without him.

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

I think about this all the time: people commit suicide by gun every day. So they want to die and they have a gun. Even if 99% of them are too depressed to do anything but die, I really think there should have been several attempts on Trump by now. I mean, hit or miss, shoot yourself like you were going to anyway right?

I'm not advocating murder or suicide. I'm just surprised it hasn't happened.

[–] Today@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

I'm shocked there haven't been attempts!

[–] errer@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think it epitomizes our cultural complacency nowadays. It’s the same reason why we don’t have mass protests right now. People are too comfortable to give a fuck. Assassins are the seven sigma outliers of the distribution but the whole distribution has shifted so far to the complacent side that we just don’t have any anymore.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The fact that rational people might decide that stochastic terrorism is the most logical choice on both sides should terrify the FBI and Secret Service. Imagine standing in the middle of that?

[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

Every fucking day

[–] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee -1 points 4 months ago

They are not in the streets because they are endless scrolling on their phones.

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 36 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The king of Sweden has a similar exemption from the law, but he also doesn’t hold any political power. I also don’t know how waterproof his status is if he did something heinous enough.

Trump already has done heinous stuff.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 62 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Trump has already been convicted of felonies.

[–] rammer@sopuli.xyz 22 points 4 months ago

But SCOTUS just made a ruling which states that some of the evidence used to convict him is inadmissible.

Just because he made those comments while in office. Because somehow lying about paying off porn stars to win a second term is protecting the American people and thus part of his official duties. Go figure.

US justice system is f*cked.

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Boggles the mind how one can be a convicted felon and still be in the race, but if you're in prison you can't vote.

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I think prisoners and excons should be able to vote. But it's definitely important to have people be able to run from prison. See Eugene Debs, Nelson Mandela, and others.

I would love for prisoners to be able to vote actually. I mean aside from the part time slavery they endure they've got pretty much nothing but time. Time they could study the candidates and think about the issues.

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

This is a fair point I hadn't considered!

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The king of Sweden doesn't control the most powerful military in the world.

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

He doesn't control much of anything, actually!

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yup! There's also the fact that kings usually tend to at least care about their country's welfare somewhat. Republicans don't give a shit about anything but money, power, and theocracy.

[–] Kaput@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Theocracy is a mean to money and power.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

True, but there are true believers in there that actually believe Jesus is coming back and such.

[–] Kaput@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I suppose some do, sometimes I wish they were right and that they would j just get raptured already. No need for a new Kingdom and tons of massacre, just come and take them.

[–] Maeve@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago

Capitalists. Capitalists are bipartisan, and that's why Biden is doing this big nothing.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

What about if the president wants to be a naughty boy, but doesn't want any of those pesky consequences?

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

a single example of a situation where the President would need to break the law in an official capacity.

I definitely don't support the ruling but Obama has ordered drone strikes that killed children. Does that mean Obama should stand trial for murder? I think the idea is that the president is given the authority to do things most people can't, and because of that, they can't be held to the same standard as other people, at least while using that authority.

There really aught to be a line though. There can't be blanket Immunity on every single presidental act no matter what. Ordering the assassination of the al-Qaeda leader and ordering the assassination of the Democrat leader should not be considered equal actions under the law. Trump is already arguing that his conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results was an official action of the president. There's no way that should be considered valid.

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

What laws of our land were broken? Which statute? Has Obama been charged with anything and if so what? Because he didn't have immunity from criminal prosecution, remember, so if this is your example you're going to need to show that a former president a) had to break the law, b) couldn't have accomplished the thing with existing powers, and c) faced criminal prosecution for that "official act" when they shouldn't have, as a result of not having this immunity.

And this is my point exactly. Obama hasn't been prosecuted for those drone strikes, nor for the operation that killed Bin Laden; and he won't be, because those acts did not break United States law. When the President needs to do something most people can't, they use powers imparted under existing law - the president already has quite a lot of power, you know. In the few cases the President has needed more than that, they've had to go justify it and get the other branches on board, at least nominally (looking at you, Bush Jr, and sending the Guard to the middle east to get around needing Congress to send the regular Army ಠ⁠_⁠ಠ). This is the way the system was designed, with checks and balances on each branch.

Long story short I'm sorry to say I find your example lacking and my challenge remains unmet. I very much appreciate you engaging in good faith though, so thanks!

[–] Maeve@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago

I'd say Biden doing something official to null and void this decision would be good. He won't, obviously, but it's an example.